Appeal No. 2000-0573
Application No. 08/678,991
In proposing to combine Olson and Nyitrai in support of
the rejection of claim 26, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious “to modify Olson et al. with the
teachings of Nyitrai in order to provide front wheels of
smaller diameters for greater comfort and balance as skaters
must bend forward in skating” (final rejection, page 3).
Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, however,
that Nyitrai would have suggested modifying the respective
sizes of Olson’s wheels to enhance comfort and balance, it is
not evident, nor has the examiner cogently explained, why such
suggestion would have motivated the artisan to arrive at the
particular four wheel arrangement specified in claim 26.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 26, or of claims 28 and 29 which
depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Olson in view of
Nyitrai.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 30 through 35
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007