Appeal No. 1998-0210
Application No. 08/149,193
Taking into full account the language of claims 119 and
132 and the opinion of declarant Cockrell, Jr., we remain
unpersuaded that the content of the specified claims is
descriptively supported by appellants’ original disclosure.
As is evident to us from the Cockrell, Jr. declaration,
declarant perceives a basis for forces distributed in a
plurality of different directions in the present disclosure.
However, this assessment
is not commensurate with the language of each of claims 119
and 132 which addresses a distribution of “golfer” weight (not
force) in a plurality of directions. Further, like the
examiner (answer, page 10), we do not perceive the basis in
the disclosure referenced by declarant Cockrell, Jr., for the
limitation at issue in each of claims 119 and 132, as
appropriate descriptive support, in the patent law sense as
mandated by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Appellants’
specification (page 5, line 32 to page 6, line 15) provides a
discussion of a lower flange bend that at a maximum may be
one-half hemispherical such that there is more angle to the
sides of a cleat surface, and the ribs there are presented to
the turf more aggressively for more traction. Distinct from
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007