Appeal No. 98-2105
Application 29/052,205
bend in the putter shaft. Lombardo, on the other hand, does show
an angled bend in the putter shaft, but this bend, rather than
being located about midway between the ends of the putter shaft,
lies near the lower end of the shaft adjacent to the putter head.
If anything, Lombardo suggests an angled bend but at a
location spaced substantially from the location of appellant’s
angled bend to provide a distinctively different appearance as
compared with appellant’s design. Furthermore, contrary to the
examiner’s findings, the midpoint of Hyde’s curved bend is not
located midway between the ends of the putter shaft. Instead, it
appears to be located substantially closer to the lower end of
the shaft so that even if the proposed substitution were made,
there still would be significant differences between the modified
Hyde design and appellant’s design.
At best, the combined teachings of the applied references
suggest only components of appellant’s design. However, absent a
suggestion of the overall appearance of appellant’s design, a
rejection under § 103 is inappropriate. Cho, 813 F.2d at 382, 1
USPQ2d at 1663-1664.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007