Appeal No. 2002-0394 Page 3
Application No. 09/169,074
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, 18-26, 34-42, 44-47, 49, 50 and 52-57 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of
Hanson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to the brief and
reply brief (Paper Nos. 21 and 23) 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.
Each of independent claims 1, 34 and 37 before us on appeal recites a highback
or highback body having an adjustable stiffness. Phillips, the primary reference relied
upon by the examiner in rejecting the claims, discloses a system for use with a
snowboard binding including a highback 50. The examiner2 does not contend that
Phillips’ highback has an adjustable stiffness and, indeed, we find no disclosure of the
highback 50 having an adjustable stiffness.
2 The examiner’s statement (answer, page 3) that “Phillips lacks a tension adjustment device”
does not appear to have any relevance to appellants’ claims, which do not call for a tension adjustment
device.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007