Appeal No. 2001-1792 Page 6
Application No. 09/291,716
orthogonal to one another is taught by Maxwell, as explained above, and we also will
sustain the Section 102 rejection of this claim.
We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with regard to claims 3 and 7. Claim 3
requires that there be an “indicator” to provide an indication that the device is level, and
claim 7 that the device include a “reference member” to assist the archer in positioning the
stance relative to the device. Such elements clearly are not disclosed or taught by Maxwell
nor, in our view, does it appear that structure is present that inherently would accomplish
these functions. We therefore will not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 7.
The Rejections Under Section 103
The first of these rejections is that claims 9 and 10, both of which depend directly
from claim 1, are unpatentable over Maxwell. The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Applying this to claims 9 and 10 leads to the conclusion that the rejection of neither can be
sustained.
As explained above, we found the subject matter of claim 1 to be anticipated by
Maxwell. Claim 9 requires that the support frame be adjustable for uneven terrain. No
such structure is present in Maxwell, and we fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007