Appeal No. 97-2807
Application 08/233,216
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 30, mailed March 3,
1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 29, filed December 9, 1996)
for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of independent
claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that while Johnston does
disclose a long instructional ski which has a length within
appellant's claimed range, the width (c) of such ski at its
widest point is significantly less than that required in
appellant's claim 26. As for the "short" ski of Sarver, while it
may have a width within appellant's claimed range, the length of
this ski is significantly less than that required in appellant's
claim 26. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, the entire
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007