Appeal No. 1999-2737
Application No. 08/438,767
Claims 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Garrett in view of a prior art
racquet (appellants' specification, page 10, Table IV).
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellants appears in the office
action mailed November 13, 1996 and the answer (Paper Nos. 10
and 21), while the complete statement of appellants' argument
can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 19½ and
23).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants' specification and claims, the applied
teachings, the declaration of Willie McMillan dated March 26,1
1In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each reference for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007