Appeal No. 1999-0281 Page 4
Application No. 08/629,727
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
Claims 8 and 21
With respect to claims 8 and 21, we agree with the
appellants' argument (brief, p. 9) that the applied prior art
would not have suggested a flexible hitch that is attachable
between the rear, adjacent horizontal and inclined members of
a bicycle frame. In that regard, we note that (1) Kolbus'
hitch 120 is connected to the bicycle frame at the bicycle
seat as shown in Figure 1, not between the rear, adjacent
horizontal and inclined members of a bicycle frame, and (2)
Galasso's hitch is attached to the chain stay of a bicycle,
not between the rear, adjacent horizontal and inclined members
of a bicycle frame.
Since the subject matter of claims 8 and 21 would not
have been suggested by the applied prior art for the reasons
stated above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 8
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007