Appeal No. 2002-1062 Page 4
Application No. 09/285,607
With regard to claim 1, we first point out that this claim is directed to a golf mat,
and not to the combination of a golf mat and a peg. The Lorrance mat comprises a
fabric layer 17 backed by flexible panels 14 and a cushioning layer 18. While the
mechanism for altering the surface of the Lorrance mat has the stated objective of
causing depressions in the surface of the mat and differs from that disclosed by the
appellants, the mat nevertheless has a plurality of holes (unnumbered, but through
which link rods 25 extend) in the bottom surface that in our view are “suitable to
receive” a peg of solid material, which is all that the claim requires. Since the upper
fabric surface and its supporting panels are flexible, the Lorrance mat is capable of
having a protrusion created therein.
It therefore is our conclusion that all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 is
disclosed by Lorrance. Anticipation being the epitome of obviousness (see In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982)), we will sustain the
rejection of claim 1, considering Anderson merely to be confirmatory that it was known
in the art at the time of the appellants’ invention to provide simulated golf putting mats
with protrusions as well as depressions.
Claim 3 is directed to the combination of a mat of construction essentially the
same as that of claim 1 and a peg inserted into a hole in the bottom of the mat in such
a manner that the upper surface of the mat adjacent the hole is deformed upwardly so
as to create a protrusion on the top surface of the mat. The comments we made above
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007