Appeal No. 2003-1272 Page 16
Application No. 10/039,338
shear speculation and is not the natural result flowing from the teachings of Jordan. In
that regard, it is our opinion that the cleat with bristles as taught by Jordan is more akin
to the prior art spikes which are formed of a strong stiff material and provide a point or a
circle (for a truncated cone, for example) contact with the turf and thus damage and
penetrate golf turf than to the appellants' cleat of resilient material with ribs/ridges which
provide a series of line contacts with the turf and thus prevent damage to the turf and do
not penetrate golf turf.
For the reasons set forth above, claims 18 to 20, 22, 26 to 30 and 34 are not
anticipated by Jordan. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 18 to
20, 22, 26 to 30 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the examiner's rejections of claims 21, 25 and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. We have reviewed the patent to Zaleski additionally applied in the
rejection of claims 25 and 33 but find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiency
of Jordan discussed above.
New ground of rejection
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007