Appeal No. 2002-0265 Page 3
Application No. 08/787745
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 24) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 23) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 25) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Section 102 Rejection Of Claims 1-3
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 3 stand rejected as being
anticipated by Akatsuka ‘450. Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of the claimed invention. See, for example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,
708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The appellants’ invention is directed to improving composite golf club shafts by
controlling the flex properties thereof through the placement of what is known in the art
as the “flex point” or the “kick point” of the shaft. According to the appellants, flex
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007