Appeal No. 1999-2737
Application No. 08/438,767
overall knowledge of those having ordinary skill in the tennis
racquet art, that the determination of string length and the
ratio of string width to length, as now claimed, would have
been readily obtainable through ordinary experimentation and,
hence, obvious. We need not address the Sol patent and
appellants' argument relative to claims 10, 11, 13, and 14
(main brief, pages 12 through 14) since the rejection of these
claims has not been sustained. As to the rejection of claims
15 and 17 based upon the combined teachings of Garrett and
prior art racquets (appellants' specification, page 10), the
argument is based upon the respective other features of claim
1 (maximum width of at least 0.620 inch) and claim 16 (ratio
of at least 0.5). In light of the argument presented for
claims 15 and 17, we sustain the rejection thereof for the
reasons addressed above relative to respective parent claims 1
and 16.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
sustained the rejection of claims 1 through 7, 16, 18
through 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007