Appeal No. 2003-0017 Page 15
Application No. 09/326,996
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 8 to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.
Claims 13 to 15
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 13 to 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Piazza in view of Luther.
We agree with the examiner's determination (answer, p. 5) that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the support legs of Luther to
Piazza's tool in order to support the tool when not in use.2 However, we do not agree
we the examiner's subsequent determination (answer, p. 5) that it would have been
further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the non-pivoting legs
of Luther with legs that are hingedly attached (i.e., pivotally mounted) in view of the fact
that hinges are well known in the art of supports.3 In our view, the only suggestion for
modifying the non-pivoting legs suggested and taught by Luther in the manner
proposed by the examiner to arrive at the subject matter of claim 13 stems from
2 It appears to us that Luther is closer prior art to the subject matter of claim 13 than Piazza since
Luther teaches a golfing aid having (1) an elongated member having a first end and a second end, the first
end be ing provide d with golf ba ll holding m eans, a nd the elo ngated mem ber furthe r being pro vided with
means for releasing a golf ball from the holding means; and (2) legs mounted on the elongated member
for supporting the elongated me mber.
3 The examiner may wish to conduct a further search of the prior art to uncover prior art teaching
the use of support legs pivoted to a golfing device (e.g., a golf bag).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007