Appeal No. 2004-1228
Application No. 09/813,088
with the examiner’s analysis (answer, page 7) as to this claim.
Moreover, as we discussed above, the disclosure in Rodgors of
multiple layers of carbon fibers would have disclosed or
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a plurality of
sheets made from graphite fibers as recited in appealed claim 2.
See Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary 212, 551 (Van Nostrand
Reinhold 13th ed. 1997).
As to appealed claim 6, the appellant does not provide any
argument on why the examiner’s reasoning (answer, page 8; Nov. 6,
2001 Office action, page 3) is in error. Accordingly, no basis
for reversal exists.
The 37 CFR § 1.132 declaration of Mr. Mark Messier, a
professional hockey player, is unpersuasive. While Mr. Messier
states that the present invention reduces broken sticks by
approximately 20%, the factual basis for this conclusion is
nowhere discussed. For example, Mr. Messier fails to mention the
nature and extent of the comparison between the claimed invention
and the control hockey stick. That is, Mr. Messier does not
state whether the control stick is of the type described in the
closest prior art, which is Rodgors who teaches a stick
satisfying all of the limitations recited in appealed claim 23.
Nor does Mr. Messier address the specifics of the comparative
study, e.g., the duration of the comparative study and the
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007