Appeal No. 2002-1062 Page 2
Application No. 09/285,607
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a mat for simulated golf putting. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
which appears in the appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 3,595,581 Jul. 27, 1971
Lorrance 3,601,407 Aug. 24, 1971
Trigg et al. (Trigg) 4,273,329 Jun. 16, 1981
Claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lorrance in view of Anderson.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lorrance in view of Anderson and Trigg.
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. 10) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 8) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 11) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007