Appeal No. 2002-1024
Application 09/156,060
DISCUSSION
Stirling pertains to a scoring console for use in an
automatic bowling scoring system. Figure 1 depicts one example
of how such consoles might be incorporated into a bowling center.
As shown, the bowling center includes a plurality of lanes 12,
ball return racks serving respective pairs of lanes, scoring
consoles 14 aligned with respective lanes behind their approach
areas, and tables 16 positioned adjacent and to the rear of the
consoles. Each table includes a rounded rectangular table top
and a support leg, and accommodates a plurality of chairs.
Conceding that Stirling’s tables lack the size, shape and
bowling center orientation (i.e., location) required by
independent claims 1, 6 and 10, the examiner nonetheless
concludes that such would have been obvious matters of design
choice as the appellant has not shown them to be critical in
terms of solving a particular problem or producing unexpected
results (see pages 2 through 4 in the final rejection). This
conclusion is unsound for at least two reasons. First, a claim
is not required to include critical limitations. See W.L. Gore &
Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1556, 220 USPQ 303, 315
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Second, the
appellant’s specification does in fact establish that the table
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007