Appeal No. 1999-2737
Application No. 08/438,767
specified in conjunction with a ratio of maximum width to
maximum length of at least 0.5. From our perspective, the
Garrett patent, considered as a whole, simply would not have
been suggestive to one having ordinary skill in the art of a
maximum width of at least 0.620 inch when the ratio of maximum
width to maximum length is at least 0.5.
Relative to claim 16, we are of the opinion that ratios
of maximum width to maximum length greater than the ratio of
0.417 of Garrett would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the tennis racquet art, e.g., a ratio of at
least 0.5, as now claimed. This conclusion is based upon the
readily perceived knowledge and level of skill in the tennis
racquet art when appellants' invention was made. It is also 5
our view that the subject matter of each of dependent claims
17 through 24 addresses parameters that would have been
5Our opinion is supported by appellants' acknowledgment
of a 95 square inch model based upon the Garrett disclosure
having a width of 0.6084 inch, a length of 1.257 inch, and a
W/L of 0.484 (specification, page 7). As further evident from
appellants' specification (pages 7 and 8), those having
ordinary skill in the art understood that the range of W/L
ratios reaching 0.487, 0.486, and 0.491 were common.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007