Appeal No. 2003-1272 Page 14
Application No. 10/039,338
(column 1, lines 21-40). Jordan teaches (column 2, lines 25-27) that the bristles have
sufficient stiffness so that they won't collapse or break when supporting the weight of an
athlete. Jordan sets a lower limit of about 10 bristles per square inch and an upper limit
of 40 bristles per square inch (column 2, lines 34-42). At the lower limit of about 10
bristles per square inch Jordan provides that the bristles will be formed of a material
with a "high stiffness."
The examiner's basis for this anticipation rejection (answer, p. 5) is as follows:
Considering the disclosed density of about 10 bristles per inch it is clear that one
skilled in the art would understand that the underside of the circular disc (flange)
would be exposed between bristles and would also be capable of distributing
weight over turf being walked on, while the bristles additionally support weight
and provide traction. Based upon the overall Jordan, Jr. teachings, it is quite
apparent that one skilled in this art would have fairly expected the bristles
(protrusions) of Jordan, Jr. to provide traction without doing damage to the turf
surface being walked on and without puncturing turf.
The appellants argue that claims 18 to 20, 22, 26 to 30 and 34 are not
anticipated9 since Jordan does not disclose a cleat which provides traction against the
9Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no difference between
the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary
skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc.,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007