Appeal No. 1999-2087
Application No. 08/595,449
to better conform the battery case to the shape of
the bicycle frame to save space.
We agree. While the appellants correctly point out that
Goldenfeld shows battery 16 mounted above the down tube 4,
Goldenfeld specifically teaches that the battery may be
“advantageously mounted on the down tube 4 or suspended from
the cross bar 18, but could be accommodated whenever [sic]
convenient.” See col. 3, ll. 36-38. We are of the opinion
that one skilled in this art would, on reading the Goldenfeld
patent, at once envisage each possible orientation of battery
16 on down tube 4 and, thus, that Goldenfeld is at least
suggestive of the claimed orientation. See In re Petering,
301 F.2d 676, 682,
133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962).
The appellants argue that the Davidson battery could not
be mounted below the down pipe without the electrolyte running
out. We are not persuaded by this argument because, as
pointed out by the examiner (answer, p. 7), Goldenfeld teaches
an electrically power assisted bicycle wherein the electric
motor is powered by a rechargeable NiCd battery or a dry lead-
-15-15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007