Appeal 2007-1883
Application 10/469,203
1 The Court further explained:
2 When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
3 incentives and other market forces can prompt variations
4 of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a
5 person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
6 variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
7 reason, if a technique has been used to improve one
8 device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
9 recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
10 same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
11 actual application is beyond his or her skill.
12 Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
13
14 ANALYSIS
15 We affirm the rejections of claims 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
16 paragraph, and reverse the rejection of those claims under the second paragraph of
17 the statute. We agree with the Examiner that the Specification, in showing a fabric
18 connecting bridge at the cantle end of the saddle does not teach the adjustability
19 thereof that Appellant claims in claims 37 and 38. Appellant has not described this
20 subject matter in the Specification. Accordingly, this rejection is affirmed for the
21 reasons given by the Examiner in the Answer.
22 We reverse the rejection under § 112, second paragraph, inasmuch as these
23 claims are not indefinite. One of ordinary skill would have been able to determine
24 the metes and bounds of this claimed subject matter.
25 With respect to the § 102 rejection of independent claim 25, and the claims
26 dependent thereon, based on Gorenschek, we reverse this rejection, inasmuch as it
27 is our determination that Gorenschek does not teach attaching the side bars to one
28 another only at the pommel end. The seat member of Gorenschek clearly includes
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013