Appeal No. 2004-1129
Application No. 09/755,513
The examiner states that there is no teaching that the ski
shown in Zanco’s Figure 10 is not to be used in powdered snow.
Critical to our determinations in this decision is the issue
raised on page 6 of appellants’ brief. This issue is whether
one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the
board of Zanco (whether this board is the Board shown in Figure
9 or Figure 10) such that at least one of the nose and tail has
a continuously increasing flexibility along a substantial length
from the transition end toward the tip wherein the increasing
flexibility is not exclusively the result of a change in width
of at least one of the nose and tail. The examiner believes
that motivation does exist in view of appellants’ admitted prior
art found at lines 27-29 of page 1 of appellants’ specification.
Here, appellants’ specification indicates that to improve flow
in deep snow, some cap type construction boards have been
provided with a core that has a tapered thickness at the nose.
This tapered thickness of the core results in a cap type board
having a nose that increases in flexibility from the transition
or contact area toward the tip of the nose. This increased
flexibility allows the nose to flex upward to a varying degree
along the nose when contacted by snow, thereby increasing
frontal area on the nose in amount of lift provided to the
board. (See page 1, line 27 through page 2, line 3 of
appellants’ specification).
As discussed above, appellants argue that Zanco is not
concerned with the constructional properties of the nose or tail
ends, rather, with the intermediate region of the gliding wall
this in front of the tail and behind the nose. In this way,
appellants argue that no motivation exists therefore to bother
to modify the nose or tail ends of the board of Zanco.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007