Appeal No. 2004-1129
Application No. 09/755,513
We know however that motivation can be found in teachings
other than that found in the primary reference. Here, as
discussed by the examiner, appellants’ admitted prior art does
teach the skilled artisan that if one wanted to have a board
with improved float, such can be accomplished by providing a
board with a core has a tapered thickness at the nose.
Appellants’ arguments do not convince us that the board depicted
in Zanco’s Figure 10 should not be modified to achieve improved
float. Apparently the board in Figure 10 is directed to a ski
specialized in the practice of skiing tight turns. (See
column 3, lines 32-35 of Zanco). Appellants have not adequately
explained why a ski providing benefits regarding tight turns
would not also want to be tailored to have improved float.
On page 8 of the brief, appellants argue that Zanco teaches
away from the claimed invention. Appellants state that Figure 9
of Zanco is directed to powder application and that Figure 10 is
not directed to powder application but rather is intended as a
turn carving board. Appellants argue that the relevant
embodiment of Zanco discloses a powdered board with a sidewall
construction at the nose to provide better placement of the
board on the snow. Appellants state therefore Zanco teaches
away from preferred arrangement as disclosed in their
application of a Board gliding with a nose formed of cap
construction.
However, as pointed by the examiner, Zanco does disclose in
Figure 10 a board with a nose formed of a cap construction.
Although appellants argue that this board in Figure 10 is
intended as turn carving board, appellants have shown that it
cannot function in powder applications. In this context, we
agree with the examiner’s statement made page 13 of the answer
that there is no teaching in Zanco that Figure 10 is not to be
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007