Appeal No. 2004-1129
Application No. 09/755,513
Beginning on page 12 of the answer, the examiner provides
more detail of his position. The examiner states that Figure 10
of Zanco specifically teaches that front and rear portion of the
board includes tip and tail regions. On page 13 of the answer,
the examiner states that Zanco does not indicate that the board
shown in Figure 10 is not to be used in powdered snow or would
not perform adequately in powdered snow.
Hence, in view of the above, it appears that the examiner
first referred to Figure 1 of Zanco for illustrating a nose and
tail that taper toward the tip. Then the examiner also refers
to Figure 10 which has a cap construction at the nose and a tail
and sidewall construction along at least a portion of one of the
two sides of the running length.
Appellants argue that their claims focus on the region of
the snowboard extending beyond the front end of the running
length (the nose) and behind the rear end of the running length
(the tail). Brief, page 5. Appellants argue that Zanco is not
concerned about the construction of property at nose or tail
ends. (Brief, pages 5-6). Appellants argue that rather,
Zanco’s focus is on the intermediate region of the gliding board
that is in front of the tail behind the nose. (Brief, page 6).
Appellants also explain that 3 and is directed to combining
three basic gliding board constructions, sidewall and mix
sidewall and cap along the running length of a single gliding
board. (Brief, page 6).
Appellants also explain that the ski illustrated in Figure
9 of Zanco is the only embodiment in which Zanco indicates that
is particularly suited for powdered snow. Appellants state that
there is no expressed teaching in the art of record that it
would have been obvious based on any teaching in the record or
knowledge in the art to modify the sidewall constructed segments
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007