Appeal No. 2004-1228
Application No. 09/813,088
Laboratories, 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1284-85 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569,
571 (CCPA 1982); In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1089, 197 USPQ 601,
607 (CCPA 1978).
The appellant argues that “Rodgors discloses a carbon and
glass fiber hockey stick shaft which, by its construction, is
‘relatively indestructible’” and that “[t]he addition of the
sheath of the present invention to Rodgors’ stick shaft would
therefore be superfluous...” (Substitute appeal brief, pages 12-
13; 37 CFR § 1.132 (2003)(effective Nov. 29, 2000) declaration of
Tom Omuhundro.) We note, however, that Rodgors describes each
and every limitation of appealed claim 23. Furthermore, Kline
provides a reason to apply a coating on the shaft of Rodgors for
the purpose of improving sturdiness, weather-resistance, and ease
of handling. It does not matter that Rodgors teaches a shaft
that is “relatively indestructible,” because one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to apply Kline’s coating for
all of the disclosed advantages including, but not limited to, a
further improvement in sturdiness.
The appellant urges that while Rodgors discloses a
replaceable handle portion, “[t]he instant invention is a one-
piece shaft with means for binding the sheath to it and for
attaching a blade.” (Substitute appeal brief, page 13; 37 CFR §
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007