Appeal No. 2000-0573
Application No. 08/678,991
that all four wheels simultaneously contact a tractive surface
when the skate is in use (see column 14, lines 11 through 15).
The examiner concedes (see page 3 in the final rejection)
that the Olson skate, with its four identically constructed
wheels, does not meet the limitations in independent claim 26
requiring the first and second wheels to have the same size
and the third and fourth wheels to have the same size, with
the third and fourth wheels being larger than the first and
second wheels. The appellant’s specification (see page 11)
indicates that this particular wheel arrangement permits
optimal maneuverability and high speeds.
Nyitrai discloses a two-wheeled roller skate having a
front wheel 16 and a rear wheel 17 which simultaneously
contact a tractive surface when the skate is in use (see
Figure 1). The front wheel is smaller than the rear wheel
“for greater comfort and balance as skaters must bend forward
in skating” (column 2, lines 47 and 48).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007