Appeal No. 2000-0212
Application 08/914,477
We recognize that the Travers car probably would not invert in
this manner because the front bumper would contact the ground,
but claim 16 does not contain any limitations, such as those
recited in claims 5 and 14, which would allow the body to flip
in the manner claimed; all it recites is the reaction torque
“acting to flip said body”
(emphasis added). Modification of the toy car of Travers
using the motors suggested by George would result in a vehicle
which would meet this limitation.
Rejection (4)
This rejection will not be sustained as to claims 7 and
8, since those claims are ultimately dependent on claim 5, and
the Terzian reference does not overcome the deficiencies of
the Travers/George combination noted above with regard to
claim 5.
Rejection (4) will be sustained as to claims 10 to 13,
for the same reasons as stated above with regard to rejection
(2).
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 16 is
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007