Appeal No. 2004-1129
Application No. 09/755,513
the thickness of the nose or tail with which we agree as
discussed above.
We fully appreciate appellants’ discussion of the kinds of
conditions the ski as depicted in Figure 10 is best suited. As
we discussed above, Zanco clearly states in column 3 beginning
at line 32 that the ski depicted Figure 10 is specialized in the
practice of skiing with tight turns. However, as pointed out by
the examiner and as we agree, such disclosure does not exclude
the suitability of such a ski in powder conditions when the nose
or tail are modified according to appellants’ admitted prior
art. The issue really here is whether one skilled in art would
not modify a ski such as the ski depicted in Figure 10 simply
because Zanco’s disclosure indicates it is best suited for
skiing with tight turns. This is exactly what appellants have
not convinced us of in both their brief and reply brief. Hence,
as determined above, we affirm the rejection.
III. The other art rejections
Because appellants state that the claims stand or fall
together and because the arguments made by appellants are
directed to Zanco and the admitted prior art, we similarly
affirm all the other rejections and do not need to discuss the
secondary references involved therewith.
IV. Conclusion
Each of the rejections is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007