Appeal No. 2004-1228
Application No. 09/813,088
rubber”) along the entire central shaft portion 12 to “provide[]
a hockey stick that is both sturdy, weather-proof, and easy to
handle.” (Column 1, line 47 to column 2, line 18.) As pointed
out by the examiner (answer, page 5), Kline teaches that the
protective coating may be applied to shafts of the type described
in Rodgors. (Column 1, lines 42-46.)
Hence we share the examiner’s view that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to
modify the shaft described in Rodgors to include Kline’s
elastomeric coating on its outer surface in order to obtain all
of the advantages described in Kline, thus arriving at a hockey
shaft encompassed by appealed claim 23. The hypothetical person
having ordinary skill in the art would have carried out this
modification of Rodgors with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, Rodgors further teaches that the shaft may be
provided with a thin outside surfacing veil made of a
thermoplastic (i.e., resilient) polyester. (Column 4, lines 63-
67.) From this teaching, we determine that Rodgors describes
each and every limitation recited in appealed claim 23. Although
the examiner’s rejection of appealed claim 23 has been made under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), a prior art disclosure that anticipates under
35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim obvious, for anticipation
is the epitome of obviousness. In re Baxter Travenol
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007