Appeal No. 1999-2737
Application No. 08/438,767
In light of the above, we attribute to those having
ordinary skill in the art, when the present invention was
made, knowledge and a level of ordinary skill reflected by the
known racquets and their parameters, as revealed throughout
the present specification, and as highlighted above.
As to claim 1, we share the examiner's point of view to
the effect that, based upon the knowledge of a width of 0.607
reflected by the Garrett patent and the level of skill in this
art, the claimed maximum width of at least 0.620 inch would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Like the examiner, we are of the opinion that the knowledge of
those practicing this art at the time of the present invention
would have given them the reasonable expectation that
increasing width would yield improved resistance to torsion. 3
This clearly is the reason why in a quad taper racquet, like
that of Garrett, it is known to increase racquet width to a
3This point of view is corroborated by appellants'
acknowledgment in the background section of the specification
(page 2) that a circular cross-section "or a wider frame
thickness (viewed in plan) provides increased torsion, i.e.,
resistance against twisting."
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007