Appeal No. 2000-0565
Application No. 08/539,840
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a bicycle seat gas spring adjustment system (claims
1-10) and a method for adjustment of a seat (claims 11-18). An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 11, which appear in the appendix to
the appellant's brief.
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Carroll 4,789,176 Dec. 6, 1988
The following rejections are before us for review.1
(1) Claims 1 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Carroll.
(2) Claims 2-10 and 12-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Carroll.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 14, filed July 7, 1997) and the first Office2
action and answer (Paper Nos. 3 and 25) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.
1According to the advisory action mailed March 7, 1997 (Paper No. 11), the new matter rejection under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was overcome by the amendment in Paper No. 10.
2A duplicate copy of the appeal brief was also filed on September 24, 1998 (Paper No. 20).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007