Appeal No. 2003-1272 Page 24
Application No. 10/039,338
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
I join in the majority decision with respect to rejections (6) and (7), as well as the
new ground of rejection of claims 26 to 34, and I concur in the result reached with
respect to rejections (1) and (2). I also concur in the majority’s ultimate decision to
reverse rejections (3), (4) and (5), the prior art rejections, but, as explained more fully
below, my reasons for this decision differ somewhat from those of the majority.
Moreover, for the reasons which follow, I have concerns about the scope of the "traction
means" clause in claims 18 to 22 and 25 and question whether appellants' specification
as originally filed provides support for such scope, as required under the first paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Turning first to the prior art rejections, while I might agree with the majority that
the cleat with bristles as taught by Jordan is more akin to cleats with spikes which
provide a point or circle contact with the turf, I am also cognizant of the unabridged
video showing alluded to on page 28 (footnote 18) of the March 23, 2001 Board
decision in parent Application No. 08/149,193, of not only a cleat with swirl or curved
ribs but also a cleat with mini-spikes (generally circular protrusions) being used for
traction without doing damage to the turf surface being walked on and without
puncturing the golf turf. Accordingly, any similarity between Jordan's cleat and cleats
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007