Appeal No. 1999-2776
Application No. 08/714,249
the prior art relied upon. Since we have determined that the
teachings and suggestions found in Rogahn and Danielak would
not have made the subject matter as a whole of claims 1, 2, 7
and 8 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellant’s invention, we must refuse to sustain
the examiner’s rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
Looking next to the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Knerr and Sasse, we
are in total agreement with the appellant’s position as set
forth in the brief (pages 3-4) and reply brief (pages 6-8)
regarding the hindsight nature of the examiner’s proposed
modification of the simple bubble paddle of Knerr in view of
the shiftable weight golf club of Sasse. Thus, the examiner’s
rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be
sustained.
In view of the foregoing, the examiner's decision
rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 12 of the present application
under
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007