Appeal No. 1999-2737
Application No. 08/438,767
maximum at the cross section where the greatest torsion or
twisting is expected. Accordingly, as we see it, ordinary
testing and experimentation carried out by one having ordinary
skill in the tennis racquet art would have reasonably been
expected to yield good results as to twisting parameters for
widths greater than Garrett's 0.607 inches, e.g., 0.620 inch,
as now claimed. We are also of the opinion that the content4
of each of claims 2 through 7, and 15, directly or indirectly
dependent from claim 1, would also have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in this art based upon the knowledge and
level of skill in this art reflected in the evidence before
us.
The rejection of claim 8, and claims 9 through 14, and 28
and 29 directly or indirectly dependent thereon, is not
sustained since claim 8, dependent from claim 1, addresses a
racquet wherein a maximum width of a least 0.620 inch is
4As we earlier noted, and worthy of again mentioning,
appellants' specification (page 8) explicitly reveals that
with a width of "at least 0.600 inch" in the area just above
the merger between the yoke and arms, the frame has "good
torsion or resistance to twisting in the portion of the frame
which is most subject to twisting."
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007