Appeal No. 1998-1240
Application 08/198,443
meet the preambular recitations in the claims (i.e.,
independent claims 1 and 11) calling for a removable backboard
cover or the limitations in the claims (i.e., claims 1 and 11)
requiring the cover to have one opening in its central
portion.
As conceded by the appellant (see, for example, page 5 in
the main brief), the claims in question are directed to a
removable backboard cover per se, and not to the combination
of a cover and a backboard. The appellant has not cogently
explained, nor is it evident, why the cover disclosed by Puste
is not inherently capable of use as a basketball backboard
cover, thereby meeting the preambular recitations in the
claims. Similarly, the appellant has not cogently explained,
nor is it clear, why the central notch 23' in Puste’s cover is
not inherently capable of permitting a rim attached to the
front face of a backboard to project therethrough as recited
in the claims. Although the Puste cover does include a second
opening 14, the claims do not contain any limitation which
excludes or is otherwise inconsistent with this second
opening. In this regard, the claims are not, as submitted by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007