Appeal No. 1999-2737
Application No. 08/438,767
1997, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 7
and 15 through 24, but do not sustain the rejection of claims
8 through 14 and 25 through 29. Our reasoning in support of
these conclusions appears below.
At the outset, we appreciate from a reading of
appellants' specification (page 3) that the present invention
addresses widths of a tennis racquet frame just above the area
where the yoke and Y-shaped arms of the throat merge with the
inverted
U-shaped portion of the head. The widths are of "at least
0.600 inch," "more preferably at least about 0.640 inch," with
the ratio of width to height being "at least 0.50, and more
1(...continued)
account not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007