Appeal No. 2003-1695 3
Application No. 09/771,072
Claims 68 through 79, 104 through 109, 112 and 113 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Scanlan in view of Van Holt.
Claims 68 through 79, 104 through 109, 112 and 113 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Holt, in view of Owen.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellant and
the examiner and agree with the appellant that the rejections of the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse both rejections.
The Rejection under Section 103(a) over Scanlan and Van Holt, Jr.
It is the examiner’s position that, “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have used a cover mount such as Van Holt’s with Scanlan’s device if it was
desired to support the device by the sides of the hole and reduce the amount of material
necessary to construct the device.” See Office action dated December 03, 2001, paper
no. 7, page 2. Similarly, the examiner has stated that, “knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art was that golf hole plugs may be mounted in the hole in
various ways. One wishing to improve on one such device would obviously have
considered the merits of the other.” See Answer, page 4. We fail to find the requisite
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007