Appeal No. 2004-1175 Page 4
Application No. 09/850,307
(a) a non-rotatable tire and wheel support member having an upper
surface for engagement by an outer surface of said tire and wheel;
(b) means engageable with said non-rotatable tire and wheel support
member for securing said tire and wheel to said non-rotatable tire and wheel
support member; and
(c) at least one wheel rotatably engaged to and below said upper surface
of said non-rotatable tire and wheel support member for providing rolling contact
with a ground surface during movement of said bicycle having said at least one
of a damaged wheel and a flat tire mounted on said wheel.
In the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 before us in this appeal
(answer, pp. 4-5), the examiner (1) set forth the pertinent teachings of Graber and
Caddick; (2) ascertained1 that "Graber fails to show the support having an upper
surface;" and (3) concluded that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify the bicycle support stand of Graber with the strap-
like members, as taught by Caddick for securely engaging and holding down an
outer rim of the tire and wheel in order to secure the tire (of any balloon size,
including a damaged tire) in the receiving portion thereof.
The examiner has not correctly ascertained the differences between Graber and
claim 1. In our view, one difference between Graber and claim 1 is the limitation that
the bicycle has "at least one of a damaged wheel and a flat tire mounted on said wheel."
Since Caddick does not teach or suggest a bicycle having either a damaged wheel or a
1 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007