Appeal No. 2001-0464 Page 5
Application No. 08/888,967
and with said clasp being releasable to detach from
said restraint bar when opened here support for said
snowboard is not needed.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
Even assuming arguendo that the claimed substantially
stiff cord with a hook means at one end of the cord and a
clasp at the opposite end of the cord was readable on the
elastic cord disclosed in Figure 16 of Westwood, it is our
opinion that the applied prior art is not suggestive of the
claimed invention. In that regard, it is our view that the
applied prior art does not teach or suggest (1) coupling the
hook means to a rear binding of one of the front and back foot
mountings; and (2) coupling the clasp to a restraint bar of a
chairlift. While Gomez teaches a snowboard support and tether
including a support strap 31 having a quick-clip connector 35
for attachment of the support strap to a complemental member
36 on the snowboard, Gomez does not couple his quick-clip
connector 35 to a rear binding of one of the front and back
foot mountings. While Piper does teach hanging a portable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007