Appeal No. 98-2520
Application 08/613,792
at the claimed subject matter. In this regard, we consider
that the examiner’s proposed modifications of the golf club
shaft in Billings to have the particular layers claimed by
appellant arranged in the particular sequence claimed are
based on hindsight reconstruction of the claimed subject
matter using appellant’s own teachings and disclosure. For
that reason, we refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 4, 6 through 10, 12 through 14, 17 through 19
and 21 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Billings in view of Kusumoto and Akatsuka.
Nor shall we sustain any of the examiner’s other
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have carefully reviewed
the patents to Noguchi, Roy and Nagamoto applied by the
examiner in those other rejections, but find nothing therein
which would provide for the teachings and/or suggestions which
we have already determined to be lacking in the examiner’s
stated combination of Billings, Kusumoto and Akatsuka.
Moreover, we generally share appellant’s view that each of the
additional rejections posited by the examiner is also based on
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007