Appeal 2007-2848
Application 10/765,106
Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Radakovich in view of Takeuchi and Bloom. Claim 14 further requires
that “the first alignment line is longer than the second alignment line.”
The Examiner finds that Radakovich discloses an angled sighting
device, however,
Radakovich lacks a first alignment line being longer than a
second alignment line. Bloom discloses a putter (Fig. 4) with a
cross section of a grip being oval with a major axis
perpendicular to the face of head in order to have an ergonomic
gripping surface that promotes a preferred palm and promotes
proper hand and body placement (Abstract).
(Answer 13.)
The Examiner concludes
[i]n view of the patent of Bloom it would have been obvious to
modify the putter of Radakovich to have a grip being an oval
with a major axis perpendicular to the face of a head with the
first alignment line along the major axis and the second
alignment line along the minor axis in order to have a grip …
having an ergonomic gripping surface that promotes a preferred
palm and promotes proper hand and body placement as well as
alignment features a golfer is able to use when hitting a ball.
(Answer 13.)
Appellant argues that the cited references fail to describe
indicia having intersecting lines wherein one line is longer than the
other. (Br. 15.)
Claim 14 is directed to the printed form of the claimed lines and is
therefore printed matter. In determining whether the printed matter imparts
patentability to a claimed invention, however, “the critical question is
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013