Appeal No. 2004-1081
Application 10/041,836
Appellant correctly points out that Gibbs alone and as combined with Manley would not have
taught or suggested the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claim 1 to one of ordinary skill in this
art. Indeed, while each of these references discloses in the specification and figures thereof a plurality of
club paths, each club path is in fact specific to a specific shot based on a specific club in Gibbs (e.g., page
1, line 102, to page 2, line 7, and page 2, lines 17-26) and
to a specific club in Manley (e.g., cot. 1, line 68, to cot. 2, line 35). Thus, even if one of ordinary skill in
this art would have combined the teachings of these references as suggested by the examiner, that person
would not have arrived at the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claim 1, including all of the
limitations thereof arranged as required. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,1050-54, 5
USPQ2d 1434, 1438-41 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Furthermore, we agree with appellant that integral plate element 15 and arms 16, to which we
include adjustable indicator arm 21, of Molinar FIG. 1 as explained by the reference (e.g.,
col. 2, lines 34-41, and col. 2, line 51, to col. 3, line 14), do not pertain to club paths or club face indicators
as the examiner alleges. Indeed, this disclosure is directed to the placement of the back foot, that is, the
stance, of the golfer. If the examiner has evidence or a scientific explanation supporting the contrary
allegation made in the answer (page 9), then the same should have been made of record.
Accordingly, on this record, we reverse all of the grounds of rejection.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007