Appeal No. 2004-1922 Page 6
Application No. 09/760,567
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined teachings of Allsop and
Schwarting fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter recited in claim 14, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 14 or of claims
15-18, which depend therefrom.
(2)
Claims 1-7, 13 and 19-22 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Allsop and
Schwarting, applied as in the rejection of claim 14, taken further in view of Hyman,
which was cited for teaching the use of a cam to inhibit the movement of a pin between
two portions of a slot.
Independent claim 1 recites the same structure that was set forth in claim 14, and
includes greater detail of the construction of the means for activating and deactivating
the shock-absorbing member. This being the case, the same problems in combining
Allsop and Schwarting that we discussed in the rejection of claim 14 et al. also are
present in this rejection. Further consideration of the teachings of Hyman, which is
directed to a collapsible ski pole, do not alleviate those problems, and on the same
basis we therefore will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 or of dependent
claims 2-7 and 13.
We reach the same conclusion, for the same reasons, with regard to the rejection
of independent claim 19 and dependent claims 20 and 21. As was the case with the
other independent claims, claim 19 includes a shock-absorbing member and means for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007