Appeal No. 2004-1228
Application No. 09/813,088
(Answer, page 4.) According to the examiner, “one may just as
easily read the appellant’s disclosure as providing a permanently
joined blade.” (Id.)
We cannot agree with the examiner on this issue. The
present specification describes (page 13, lines 21-23): “[O]ne
has a grip ensconced shaft as depicted in figure 7 which may be
mated, preferably with blade B, by inserting blade B’s hosel
portion 13 into receptacle or cuff 14 to form a hockey stick 10.”
While the specification does not expressly state that the blade,
once inserted into the shaft, is removable, there is also no
indication that the blade is permanently attached to the hockey
shaft. Because the blade must be either permanently or removably
attached (e.g., Rodgors) to the shaft, it is our judgment that
the specification as originally filed would have reasonably
conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the appellant,
as of the filing date, had possession of the invention recited in
the appealed claims.
The examiner’s reliance on In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593,
194 USPQ 470, 474 (CCPA 1977) is misplaced. In Barker, the court
held that a claim specifying a step of selecting a backboard
having a length equal to the width of at least six shingles
violated the written description requirement because the
specification and drawings disclosed only “backing boards of four
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007