Appeal No. 1998-0210
Application No. 08/149,193
At the outset, we particularly note that appellants, in
their summary of the invention (main brief, page 4),
characterize the invention as a golf cleat that includes a
flange that distributes the weight of the golfer over the turf
(specification, page 6, lines 1 through 3) and a plurality of
ribs on the flange which are presented to the turf to provide
traction (specification, page 6, lines 14-15). The impression
given by appellants is that the disclosure specifies that the
functions of weight distribution and traction are divided
between the flange and the ribs. This understanding of
appellants’ point of view is corroborated by arguments
presented, i.e., “the flange supports the golfer’s weight and
the ribs provide traction” (main brief, page 16).
However, it is the opinion of this panel of the Board
that appellants’ underlying disclosure does not teach or
reasonably infer an absolute division or separation of the
functions of weight distribution and traction between the
flange and ribs. Our overall technical assessment of the
disclosed golf cleat configuration indicates to us that one
skilled in the art would comprehend that golfer weight would
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007