Appeal No. 97-4004
Application 08/459,417
broadly be a “lane arrow”), as well as providing a means for
subjecting these fluorescent elements to ultraviolet light, in
order to achieve the advantages of providing (1) training and
creating an amusing effect as taught by Davidson and (2) “novel
entertainment” as taught by Panosh.
As to claims 2 and 18 the appellants, while conceding that
they “did not invent fluorescent apparel” (reply brief, page 4),
nevertheless argue that none of the prior art relied on by the
examiner teaches bowler “apparel” having a fluorescent exterior
surface thereon. We must point out, however, that claims 2 and
18 are so broad that they would not define over a bowler who
utilized the bowling apparatus of Clapham, as modified by
Davidson and Panosh, and happened to be dressed in a well known
type of apparel (i.e., fluorescent apparel). Accordingly, we do
not believe that claims 2 and 8 patentably distinguish over the
combined teachings of Clapham, Davidson and Panosh.
In view of the foregoing we will sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Clapham in view of Davidson and Panosh.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 3, 4, 7-11, 17, 19
and 21-26. With respect to claims 3, 4, 19 and 24, it is
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007