Appeal No. 2003-1272 Page 28
Application No. 10/039,338
to 1/8 inch) disclosed by appellants on page 8 of their specification.3 Further, taking as
an example, Jordan's lower end of 10 bristles per square inch and a bristle diameter of
1/8 inch, the contact surface area presented by the bristles would be just slightly less
than 1/8 in.2 per square inch of the cleat body (or approximately 1/8 of the surface area
of the cleat body), which would appear to either approach or exceed that presented by
the traction ribs of appellants' cleats, as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, for example.
I am also writing separately because I am concerned that the problems
discussed by the majority in the new ground of rejection of claims 26 to 34 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 also spill over into claims 18 to 22 and 25, which
recite "traction means extending from the opposing bottom surface of said flange." I
agree with the majority that the written description of appellants' application as originally
filed would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that only ribs/ridges, defined
on page 7 of appellants' specification as having "a crest which is at least one line,
compared to the crest of the prior art spikes which are a point or a circle (for a truncated
cone, for example)," would be capable of providing traction without damaging the turf or
penetrating golf turf in the manner contemplated by appellants' application. Stated
differently, protrusions which do not have a crest which is at least one line (i.e., which
3I note, in this regard, that the effective contact width of appellants' triangular ribs
will be significantly less than the width at the base of the rib.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007