Appeal No. 1998-2657
Application No. 08/659,359
a target such as disclosed by Brandell. However, we do not
consider that, in combining the teachings of these two
references, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
locate the laser beam emitter (module) on the target, as
called for by claim 1. Our conclusion is based on the fact
that in the Terry apparatus the laser beam is directed from
the golfer's position toward the target. In our view, the
opposite arrangement of locating the laser on the target and
directing it back toward the golfer would be the result of
improper hindsight, based on appellant's own disclosure,
rather than the result of a teaching or suggestion coming from
the applied prior art.
Rejection (2) of claim 1, and of dependent claims 3 to 5,
will therefore not be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3 to 5 and 11
to 13 is reversed. Claims 1, 3 to 5 and 11 are rejected
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.196(b).
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007