Appeal No. 2002-1019
Application 09/433,570
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing alternative
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 9 and 16, and dependent
claims 2 through 8, 10 through 15, 22 and 23, as being obvious
over Tischler.
VI. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 17 through 20
Claims 17 through 20 depend from independent claim 16 and
define the brace member recited therein as embodying various
angles. For the reasons expressed above, Tischler would not have
suggested the subject matter recited in parent claim 16.
Moreover, the examiner’s position (see pages 7 and 8 in the final
rejection) that the angles set forth in claims 17 through 20 are
taught by, or would have been obvious over, Tischler is
completely lacking in factual support.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 17 through 20 as being unpatentable over
Tischler.
VI. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21 and 24
As the telescopic golf club shafts for which Harrison and
Middleton are cited (see pages 8 and 9 in the final rejection)
fail to cure the foregoing deficiencies of Tischler with respect
to parent claim 16, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007