Appeal No. 2002-1198
Application 09/349,306
“fully erect posture” as required in appellant’s claims 1 and 4
on appeal. Contrary to the examiner’s assertions, Figures 8 and
10 of Williams do not show the golfer in an “erect” posture.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, Prentice
Hall Press, 1986, defines “erect” as meaning “1. Not bending or
leaning; straight up; upright; vertical.” This definition is
consistent with that provided by appellant in the paragraph
bridging pages 4 and 5 of the specification of the present
application, wherein appellant notes that the golfer of Figure 1
is “standing erect,” i.e., the golfer does not bend over at the
waist, does not bend his or her knees, and, in addition, that the
golfer’s head is not bent downwardly to look at the ball and the
golfer does not lean to either side. Thus, with this
understanding, it is clear that Williams does not teach, suggest
or show a golfer in a “fully erect posture.” Moreover, as
conceded by the examiner (final rejection, page 3), Williams
fails to teach or suggest anything regarding a “chip shot,” which
golf shot is the central focus of appellant’s method claims on
appeal.
Independent claim 1 on appeal further requires the step of
performing said steps [i.e., those set forth in the
claim for making a chip shot] with a golf club head disposed
at a substantially one hundred degree angle relative to said
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007