Appeal No. 2003-0109 Page 3
Application No. 09/576,649
said first and second mounting means comprising a central longitudinal
bar portion, a first vertical bar portion extending from said central portion for
supporting said first seating member, and a second vertical bar portion extending
from said central bar portion for supporting said second seating member, said
first vertical bar portion being substantially longer than said second vertical bar
portion,
whereby in said first position the rider can efficiently pedal the bicycle and
in said second position can readily hold the bicycle at rest.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Murrell 2,550,200 Apr. 24, 1951
Robbin et al. (Robbin) 4,632,453 Dec. 30, 1986
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Murrell.1
Claims 1, 2 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Robbin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
1 In the final rejection, the examiner also rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Murrell. The examiner did not repeat the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Murrell in the answer. We assume that this ground of rejection of claim 14
has been withdrawn by the examiner. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007