Appeal No. 2002-1408
Application No. 09/228,076
from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from
the appellant's disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837
F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
Claim 1
An overhead supported system to suspend a net over a floor, the
system comprising:
a net having a longitudinal axis;
a spaced pair of masks pivotally connected to an overhead
structure to pivot about an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the net
between a stored position and a play position; and
a pair of braces, each brace coupled to the overhead structure
adjacent a first end, and coupled to the masts adjacent a second end to
lock the masts in the play position, wherein the system does not contact
and is not secured to the floor.
The Rejection Based Upon QUIK SET, Albach And Allbright
This rejection is applied to claims 1-12. The examiner is of the view that
QUIK SET discloses all of the elements in independent claim 1 except for the mast
pivotally connected to an overhead structure, but that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art “to have employed the mast of Albach with the apparatus
of Quik Set in order to permit the apparatus to be easily stored in the ceiling girder
system of the sports area” (Answer, page 3). Allbright is cited for its disclosure of a net
height adjustment device, a feature that is not recited in claim 1. The appellant argues
that there is no suggestion for modifying the QUIK SET system by providing Albach’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007