Appeal No. 2002-0754
Application 09/046,797
Obviousness
The unpowered road luge of claims 1 through 5, 7, 10, 13, 16
through 19, and 21 would not have been obvious based upon the
combined teachings of Eilers and Matsuura. Akin to Matsuura, as
described above, Eilers teaches a three wheel recumbent vehicle
provided with pedals for powered operation by a rider. It
follows that, collectively considered, these teachings would not
have been suggestive of an unpowered road luge, as claimed. It
is for this reason that the obviousness rejection at issue cannot
be sustained.
The unpowered road luge of claims 11, 12, and 14 would not
have been obvious based upon the teaching of Matsuura and the
combination of Eilers and Matsuura, respectively, as discussed
above, further in view of Shoquist, Wiener, and Dean. Simply
stated, each of the latter references fail to overcome the noted
deficiency of the Matsuura reference and the combination of
Eilers and Matsuura. It follows that the respective rejections
of claims 11, 12, and 14 cannot be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007