Appeal No. 1999-2087
Application No. 08/595,449
acid battery (see col. 5, ll. 49, 50) which is clearly capable
of operating in the claimed orientation.
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. In
our opinion, the motivation on the part of one having ordinary
skill in the art for employing the battery orientation
suggested by Goldenfeld in the electrically power assisted
bicycle taught by Davidson would have been to obtain the self-
evident advantages thereof while avoiding the disadvantages of
a storage battery and orientation disclosed by Davidson.
For the reasons set forth above, the rejection of claim
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will be sustained. Since claim 19
stands or falls with claim 17, supra, we will also sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 19.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 3 through 5, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Murphy in view of JA 60-7995 is
-16-16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007