Appeal No. 2000-0573
Application No. 08/678,991
Independent claims 30 and 33 are substantively similar to
independent claim 26 except for the limitations therein
relating to the wheel sizes. Claim 30 requires the third and
fourth wheels to have the same size, the second wheel to be
smaller than the first wheel, and the third and fourth wheels
to be larger than the first and second wheels. Claim 33
requires the third wheel to be smaller than the fourth wheel,
the second wheel to be smaller than the first wheel, and the
third wheel to be larger than the first and second wheels.
The appellant’s specification (see pages 17 and 18) indicates
that the wheel arrangement recited in claim 30 allows the
skate chassis to be very close to the ground and further
enhances maneuverability and that the wheel arrangement
recited in claim 33 further enhances stability.
The examiner concedes (see page 3 in the final rejection)
that Olson, even when combined with Nyitrai, does not meet the
foregoing limitations. Nonetheless, the examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious in view of Madsen “to modify
the combination of Olson et al. and Nyitrai in order to change
the size and the arrangement of the wheels in order to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007