Appeal No. 98-2946
Application 08/291,596
the appellant, David Skedeleski, as well as by James
Vermillion, Jon Bruggeman and Harry Martin.
On pages 13 to 18 of his brief, appellant argues that the
claimed subject matter would not have been prima facie obvious
over grounds of rejection (1) and (2). We disagree,
essentially for the reasons stated in our decision, Paper No.
23. While snowboards and surfboards may be “different
products with different problems” (brief, page 14), it appears
that they would have the common problem of damage due to
collision (impact) and abrasion. In our view, one of ordinary
skill seeking to solve this problem with regard to snowboards
would have found in Joyce’s disclosure a suggestion of how to
solve the problem. The fact that surfboards may not be
subject to delamination, as snowboards are, is not persuasive
of unobviousness for the reasons stated on pages 7 and 8 of
Paper No. 23.
With regard to the recitation in claim 1 that the tip
cover has an arcuate extent of about 150 -190 , we held thatB B
the extent of coverage would have been an obvious matter,
appellant not having shown that it was critical, citing In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007