Appeal No. 2004-0247 Page 3
Application No. 09/899,664
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention simplifies the nut-and-screw fittings that attach the
highback (calf support) of a snowboard binding to the baseplate of the binding and
increase the range of orientation adjustment of the highback about its vertical axis. With
reference particularly to Figure 3 of the drawings, this is accomplished by making
coaxial one of the screws (25) that secures the highback (8) to the bow (7) upon which it
is mounted and one of the screws (24) that secures the bow (7) to the baseplate (6),
and having these two screws (25 and 24) share a common nut (17).
It is the examiner’s view that all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 is
disclosed by Lehner except for the designated screws sharing a common nut.
However, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to so modify
Lehner in view of the teachings of Swanson “for limiting the number of parts within the
snowboard binding, for example” (Answer, page 5). The appellant argues that Swanson
is not analogous art and that, in any event, the references fail to provide suggestion to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Lehner binding in the manner proposed by
the examiner. We agree on both counts, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1
or of claims 2 and 4, which depend therefrom. Our reasoning follows.
The test for analogous art is first whether the art is within the field of the
inventor's endeavor and, if not, whether it is reasonably pertinent to the problem with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007