Appeal No. 95-0575
Application No. 07/921,645
in public use at least as early as March 19, 1991” (first Office
action, Paper No. 3, page 2) 2
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:
a) claims 1 through 3, 5 and 10 as being unpatentable over
Exhibit A;
b) claims 3, 4, 20, 22 and 23 as being unpatentable over
Exhibit A in view of Bearson and Barisa;
c) claims 1 through 3 and 6 through 10 as being unpatentable
over Exhibit A in view of Bottorff, Haston, Wilson, Sinner and
Grable;
d) claim 13 as being unpatentable over Exhibit A in view of
Nye;
2The photographs were submitted in Design Application
07/672,595 on March 19, 1991, the filing date of the application.
This design application is referred to on page 2 of the
appellant’s specification, and has since matured into U.S. Patent
No. Des. 343,883, granted February 1, 1994. The appellant has
not disputed that the adjustable basketball backboard support
system shown in the photographs is prior art with respect to the
subject matter recited in the appealed claims. Indeed, the
appellant concedes that the system shown in the photographs is
that illustrated in the design patent (see page 7 in the main
brief), which patent is prior art with respect to the subject
matter recited in the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
In an apparent attempt to simplify his discussion of the system
shown in the photographs, the examiner seems to have prepared a
“Sketch A” of the system with reference numbers added (see the
first Office action, page 2). Although the record before us does
not contain a copy of the sketch, the examiner’s discussion of
the prior art system is clear enough for us to proceed and review
the merits of the appealed rejections.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007