Appeal No. 2003-1272 Page 33
Application No. 10/039,338
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part.
With respect to the rejections of record, I agree with all of the actions taken by
the majority. I do not, however, agree with the majority or the concurring opinion by
Judge Bahr that claims 26 through 34 should be rejected for lack of written description.
Nothing in the prior art of record precludes appellants from broadly claiming their
invention as "protrusions" (claim 26), "traction members" (claims 27 through 33) or
"traction elements" (claim 34) that provide traction without damaging or puncturing golf
turf. If there is prior art directed to such spikes, it certainly has not been made of record
for our consideration. The majority opinion and Judge Bahr's opinion to the contrary
notwithstanding, nothing in the originally filed disclosure precludes appellants from using
such broad terms to describe their invention.
In the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of the specification, appellants clearly
explain that:
The cleat has a plurality of ribs on the traction surface in place of standard
pointed protuberances1. The cleat is formed generally in a unitary body having a
threaded stud axially protruding from the upper surface of a generally
concavo-convex flange from the perspective of sole 2. The ribs may be present
1 A protuberance is defined as something that protrudes.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007