Appeal No. 2004-1129
Application No. 09/755,513
at the nose and tail ends of the running length of the gliding
water Figure 9 of Zanco to provide a increasing or varying
flexibility of the nose and/or tail ends. (Brief, page 6).
Appellants state that they noted this deficiency during
prosecution and in response, the examiner pointed the embodiment
of Figure 10 of Zanco indicating that here the primary reference
disclosed a front region with a cap construction and an
intermediate region that was configured with a sidewall, and
that it would have been obvious in view of appellants’ admitted
prior art, to provide the cap constructed segment at the front
end of the running length with a tapered thickness. Appellants
argue that the ski depicted in Zanco’s Figure 10 is a ski that
is suitable for carving turns on a groomed surface not one that
is particularly suited for uses and conditions in which float is
desired. At the top of 7 of the brief, appellants further argue
that the combination of Figure 10 in Zanco with the admitted
prior art is flawed for several reasons. Appellants argue that
the admitted prior art is directed specifically to the make-up
of the nose and tail regions of a board and not to the portions
of the running length that are adjacent to, but not part of,
these end sections of the board which is in contrast to Zanco.
Appellants argue and we reiterate that Zanco does not discuss
properties or construction of the nose and tail sections of its
disclosed embodiments.
On page 13 of the answer, the examiner rebuts and states
that independent claim 1 makes no mention of powdered snow and
therefore the comments regarding powdered snow does not pertain
to claim 1. Since we are considering claim 1 in this appeal
only because appellants state that the claims stand or fall
together, this statement made by the examiner is important.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007