Appeal No. 2004-1228
Application No. 09/813,088
and eight foot lengths having a repetitive series of eight or
sixteen shingles thereon.” Unlike the situation in Barker, the
present specification describes a hockey stick in which the blade
must be attached to the shaft in one of only two possible ways -
i.e., either removably or permanently.
For these reasons, we cannot affirm the examiner’s rejection
on this ground.
II. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 18-25, 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, & 44
over Rodgors & Kline
We agree with the examiner’s reasoning (answer, pages 5-6;
Nov. 6, 2001 Office action, page 3) that the prior art teachings
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
Rodgors and Kline. Rodgors describes a hockey stick shaft in the
form of an elongated tubular member formed as a plurality of
discrete layers of bondable material (i.e., a composite layup),
such as layers made of unidirectional carbon fiber rovings. 2
(Column 2, lines 18-22; column 3, line 36 to column 4, line 62;
Examples 1 and 2; Tables 1-3.)
Kline teaches a protective coating 17 (e.g., “smooth hard
2 The disclosure in Rodgors of multiple layers of carbon
fibers would have at least suggested a plurality of sheets made
from graphite fibers as recited in appealed claim 2, which is
discussed in rejection III. See Hawley’s Condensed Chemical
Dictionary 212, 551 (Van Nostrand Reinhold 13 th ed. 1997), copy
attached.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007