Appeal No. 2002-1954
Application No. 09/458,926
broad range by showing criticality of and the existence of
unexpected properties within the claimed range” (499 F.2d at
, 182 USPQ at 553).
Thus, Bohannan does not disclose each and every element of
the baseball bat recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 1, and dependent claim 2, as being anticipated by Bohannan.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Claims 3 through 11 depend from independent claim 1 and
thereby include its recitation of the 35° to 55° fiber angle
range. Like claim 1, independent claim 12, from which claims 13
through 22 depend, independent claim 23, from which claims 24
through 28 depend, and independent claim 29 all recite at least
one fiber angle range significantly narrower than the helical
fiber angle ranges disclosed by Bohannan. The examiner’s
conclusions of obviousness with respect to claims 3 through 29
rest on a finding that the relatively narrow ranges required
thereby are met by Bohannan. For the reasons discussed above in
conjunction with claim 1, this finding is unsound and thus
fatally taints the conclusions of obviousness founded thereon.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007