of a pair of boots. For the foregoing reasons, we are
unpersuaded by Bourdeau’s argument that when interpreted in
light of Okajima’s figures and specification, the term “plane
of approximate symmetry” as it applies to Okajima’s claim 18
is the same as the “longitudinal median plane” of Bourdeau
claim 27 (the count).
Bourdeau additionally argues that even if the second
definition is interpreted inconsistently with the first
definition for the term “plane of approximate symmetry”,
Okajima’s claim 18, when broadly construed, would cover
snowboard boots with planes of approximate symmetry that are
the same as the longitudinal median plane. (Paper 49 at 8).
This does not mean however, that the subject matter of
Okajima’s claims 18-20 would have been obvious given the
subject matter of Bourdeau’s claim 27 as prior art. Even
though Okajima’s claim 18 may “cover” snowboard boots whose
front and rear widths are the same, does not mean that one
having ordinary skill in the art knew of such snowboard boots
or that such snowboard boots existed. Further, the fact that
a claimed species or subgenus is encompassed by a prior art
genus is not sufficient by itself to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d
1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Claim 27 does not recite the
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007