Appeal No. 2004-0260 Page 2
Application No. 09/091,788
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a self-propelled vehicle which can be driven
with an operator riding on the vehicle or with an operator not riding on the vehicle.
Further understanding of appellant’s invention can be obtained from a reading of
representative claim 14, which is reproduced in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Brandenfels 4,750,578 Jun. 14, 1988
Brown 5,010,973 Apr. 30, 1991
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 14, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Brandenfels.
Claims 7, 9 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brandenfels in view of Brown.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 45) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 43) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007