Appeal No. 2000-0917 Page 13
Application No. 09/104,763
We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, pp. 6-8;
reply brief, pp. 2-8) that absent the use of impermissible
hindsight there is no motivation, suggestion or teaching in
the combined teachings of the applied prior art to arrive at
the subject matter of claim 1. In that regard, it is our view
that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest that
(1) attaching the signal producing portion directly on a
person as taught by Curley allows the person to more easily
operate the signal producing portion than the position of the
signal producing portion in the carrier as taught by
Villanueva; and
(2) a signal producing portion is less likely to be stolen if
the signal producing portion is worn by a person instead of
being carried on a vehicle. 2
2In fact, Villanueva teaches that the audio equipment can
be easily mounted to and removed from the carrier to prevent
theft of the equipment. When parking the bicycle, the user can
simply remove and carry the audio equipment until he or she
returns to the bicycle.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007