Appeal No. 2000-2054 Page 6
Application No. 08/661,593
(3) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to have provided such reinforcements on a racket such as
Viellard's to further strengthen it.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
The claim under appeal recites a game racquet comprising,
inter alia, (1) a frame made of a tubular member of a
predetermined length by a filament winding method, (2) a
triangular throat portion made of a foam material wrapped with
resin prepreg tape, and (3) a plurality of reinforcing pieces
made of resin prepreg tape. While the examiner may be correct
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to have provided reinforcements as taught by Cecka on
Viellard's racket to strengthen it, the applied prior art does
not teach or suggest a triangular throat portion of a racket
made of a foam material wrapped with resin prepreg tape.
Thus, the examiner has not presented evidence that would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant
teachings of the applied prior art to arrive at the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007