Appeal No. 2001-1792 Page 7
Application No. 09/291,716
incentive in the reference which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to make such
a modification.
Claim 10 adds the requirement that the bow be a “standard archery bow,” and that it
be attached to the bow positioning member via a “stabilizer mounting hole” on the bow.
The appellant has explained on pages 5 and 6 of the specification that a “standard” bow is
one which has a threaded bow stabilizer mounting hole provided therein. He has argued in
the Brief (page 10) that his invention allows any owner of a standard bow to use his training
aid, whereas that is not the case with the Maxwell device, in that the Maxwell bow is a
custom bow provided with a non-standard yoke. The Maxwell bow is comprised of a yoke
20 that defines a central recess and a pair of flat spring arms 24 attached to the yoke on
opposite sides of the recess, the objective being to allow the arrow to be aligned with the
bow rather than being off-set from it (page 1, line 18 et seq.). It appears to us that this is
not a “standard” bow, as defined by the appellant. Moreover, the examiner has not
responded to the arguments set out by the appellant on this issue, and in the absence of
evidence that the disputed claimed structure is disclosed by Maxwell or is inherent in the
Maxwell device, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 10.
The second rejection under Section 103 is that the subject matter recited in
independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12-19 would have been obvious in view of
Kieselhorst. Claim 11 sets forth a support frame and a bow positioning mechanism that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007