Appeal No. 1999-1986
Application 08/677,776
appellants’ own teaching in this application, would one have
been able to derive the specifically defined street hockey
puck of claim 21. In other words, and consistent with the
view of declarant Chinn (paragraph 8), the overall Bigornia
disclosure lacks any suggestion whatsoever that would have
motivated one skilled in the art to so alter the holes in the
disks as to allow the disks to simultaneously contact both
faces of the puck cavity, as now claimed. The Bigornia
reference is simply not sound evidence of obviousness relative
to the invention on appeal.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007