Appeal No. 2000-1474 Page 19
Application No. 08/962,902
Independent claim 31 reads as follows:
In a steerable non-motorized two-wheeled adult
vehicle, the improvement comprising a standing platform
and an omni-
directional lower sliding surface below said standing
platform and between the two wheels, said lower sliding
surface having a generally smooth and snag-free face
extending under said standing platform, said standing
platform having sufficient width and length to support
both feet of the rider in a variety of positions on the
platform to permit an acrobatic rider to engage the lower
sliding surface with the ground and ground-supported
objects while pointed in multiple directions.
and dependent claim 32 reads as follows:
The vehicle of claim 31 wherein the improvement
further comprises front and rear wheels of said vehicle
having diameters of from about 16 to about 20 inches,
said standing platform having a width of about 8 to about
10 inches and a length of about 24 inches to about 27
inches and being supported by said wheels below their
axes of rotation and several inches above the ground.
With regard to claim 32, the examiner determined (final
rejection, pp. 10-11) that it would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the art to modify Mueller's scooter to have all of the
claimed dimensional limitations. The appellant argues (brief,
pp. 20-21; reply brief, pp. 9-10) that the subject matter of
claim 32 is not disclosed, taught or suggested by Mueller.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007