Appeal No. 1999-2087
Application No. 08/595,449
JA 60-7995 reference resembles a conventional bicycle frame to
the same extent as does the bicycle frame illustrated in the
appellants’ Figure 1 or in Murphy’s Figure 4.
Finally, the appellants argue that the examiner’s
suggested rearrangement of the structure is not based on the
teachings of the references. We do not share this view. As
articulated, supra, we determine that the evidence of
obviousness would have certainly provided ample incentive or
motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art for combining
the applied references without resort to the appellants’
disclosure.
For the reasons set forth above, the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will be sustained. Since claims 17 and
19 stand or fall with claim 1, supra, we will also sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of those claims.
Claims 3 through 5
We also agree with the examiner that, in view of the
combined teachings of Murphy and the JA 60-7995 reference, the
invention set forth in claims 3 through 5 would have been
-10-10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007