Appeal No. 2004-1129
Application No. 09/755,513
used in powdered snow or will not perform adequately in powdered
snow. Appellants do not dispute this statement made by the
examiner. Appellants have not adequately convinced us that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded from
modifying the nose shown in Zanco’s Figure 10 which is formed a
cap construction such that it has increasing flexibility along a
substantial length simply because Zanco indicates that the board
in Figure 10 is particularly suitable for the practice of skiing
with tight turns.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the rejection.
II. The reply brief
We have also carefully reviewed appellants’ reply brief.
Beginning on page 1 of the reply brief, appellants again
argue that the combination is in error. Appellants argue that
there would have been no motivation to modify the on-piste
styling board of Figure 10 of Zanco with the peculiar nose tail
construction of the off-piste admitted prior art board.
Appellants state that admitted prior art in fact teaches away
from the reference combination as cap-type boards configured for
any riding style other than powder. On page 2 the reply brief,
appellants also argue that snowboards and skis are design for
different condition and riding styles. Appellants argue that
ski shown in Figure 10 of Zanco is design for on-piste condition
(groomed slopes). On page 3 of the reply brief appellants argue
that there is no motivation to make the combination. Appellants
reiterate that there is no incentive for one skilled in the art
to combine on the on-piste board of Zanco with the off-piste
nose tail of the admitted prior art. Finally, at the bottom of
page 3 of the reply brief, appellants argue that with regard to
anticipation, Zanco’s written description is silent regarding
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007