Appeal No. 99-0520
Application 08/519,160
Claims 2 and 7, which are dependent on claim 1, fall therewith. Also, as to claim 7 we note
that, contrary to the examiner's statement on page 8 of the answer, the coaxially stacked elastomeric
springs disclosed by Trimble at 91 are in series, not in parallel. In order to operate in parallel, as
claimed, there would have to be some structure which would cause each elastomeric element to be
compressed equally at the same time.
Remand to the Examiner
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(e), this case is remanded to the Examiner to consider the
following:
(a) Whether claims 1, 2 and 11 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Trimble in view of a reference such as Owen (of record) or Riva which discloses a bicycle having a
front unit with a single main tube or member.
(b) Whether claim 7 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the same
combination of references as used for (a), above, taken with a reference such as Gaines et al. (of
record) which discloses a compression spring or bumper for a vehicle having the elastomeric units
arranged to operate in parallel.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007