Appeal No. 2002-1019
Application 09/433,570
breadth of the disclosure is without merit, and in any event is
properly analyzed under the first, rather than the second,
paragraph of § 112. As for the noted limitations in claims 9 and
16, the examiner has not explained, nor is it apparent, why these
limitations have an insufficient antecedent basis.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1 through 24.
IV. The 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) of claims 1 through 16, 22 and 23
Tischler discloses a putting training device designed to
“help a golfer develop the proper hinging action at the rearward
shoulder in order to develop a unique putting technique called
the ‘push-it’ stroke . . . based on the premise that the golfer
should control the putting stoke with a pushing action of the
rearward arm” (column 5, lines 1 through 6). As described in the
reference, the swing radius of the “push-it” stroke is a line
segment of constant length joining the center of the putter head
and the center of the rearward shoulder (see column 5, lines 20
through 59). This differs from the conventional “pendulum
stroke” wherein the golfer maintains a constant triangle between
the arms and shoulders and motion is generated by rocking or
rotating the shoulders back and forth around the center of the
shoulders which thus becomes the pivot point for the motion (see
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007