Appeal No. 1999-2186
Application No. 08/857,571
The affidavit shows that certain types of rubber
are more effective in erasing writing than
others. However, the teachings of Lundy clearly
recite "a flexible body member 4, preferably of
rubber" (page 1, lines 55 and 56). Thus,
lacking any specific teaching by Lundy for
desirable or undesirable types of rubber from
which to form the body member, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to form the member from any type of rubber
(including those that are effective in erasing
writing) in order to provide a resilient shaft
portion for the tee.
The examiner does not discuss the declaration in relation to
Ranseen, but presumably his position would be the same as for
Lundy.
In a nutshell, the examiner’s position seems to be that
since the generic term "rubber" disclosed by Lundy or Ranseen
would include rubber compositions effective as erasers, it
would have been obvious to use such compositions for the
rubber of Lundy’s tee body, or of Ranseen’s collar. However,
the fact that some of the materials included within the scope
of the material generically disclosed by a reference would
have the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007