Appeal No. 99-0520
Application 08/519,160
the application, claims 3 and 4, have been allowed.
The claims on appeal are drawn to a bicycle frame suspension system. They are essentially as
reproduced in the appendix of appellants' brief, with the exceptions noted on page 3 (part (8)) of the
examiner's answer.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Riva 2,756,071 July 24, 1956
Trimble 5,403,028 Apr. 4, 1995
The claims on appeal stand finally rejected on the following grounds:
(1) Claim 11, anticipated by Trimble, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e);
(2) Claims 1, 2 and 7, unpatentable over Trimble in view of Riva, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection (1)
On page 4 of the answer, the examiner specifies how, in his opinion, claim 11 is readable on
Trimble. The appellants argue only one claim limitation as not being disclosed by Trimble, namely, the
recitation of "a single substantially longitudinally extending main tube" (emphasis added). According to
appellants, Trimble does not meet this limitation because, in addition to down tube 14 of Trimble, on
which the examiner reads the claimed "main tube," Trimble also discloses a longitudinally extending top
tube 10. Appellants assert that if Trimble's top tube 10 were eliminated, tube 14 would fail.
In response to appellants' arguments, the examiner counters that (answer, pages 6 and 7):
It is first noted that there is no evidence to support the allegation that the bicycle
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007