Appeal No. 1999-2094 Page 9
Application No. 08/517,198
Based on our analysis and review of Mottino and claim 22,
it is our opinion that the only difference is the limitation
that the bicycle holder mountable on a carrier on a vehicle
includes
a spring coupled to said leg, said spring arranged to
urge said leg toward the transport position when said leg
is above said predetermined angle of pivotation and to
urge said leg toward the loading position when the leg is
below said predetermined angle of pivotation.
With regard to this difference, the examiner determined
(answer, p. 3) that "it would have been obvious to provide the
carrier of Mottino with resilient means as shown by Vanzant
and Will for allowing easier movement of the carrier."
Once again, while we agree with the examiner that it
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the
carrier of Mottino by providing it with resilient means as
shown by Vanzant and Will, this modification of Mottino does
not arrive at the claimed invention. In this regard, we agree
with the appellant (brief, pp. 11) that the urging means of
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007