Appeal No. 2004-2304
Application No. 09/886,735
ski that operates in both a snowshoe mode and a ski mode.”
This recitation is found in each of the three claims under
consideration in this appeal (claims 1, 8, and 12).
On pages 3-4 of the answer, the examiner makes
findings regarding the teachings of Ramboz. Appellants
only dispute with these findings is that Ramboz teaches an
improved snowshoe, but does not teach a ski, and provides
reasons as set forth on page 3 of the brief.
On page 6 of the answer, the examiner explains that
Ramboz teaches that the sliding fin element 41 serves to
form a sliding surface for allowing longitudinal sliding
motion of the snowshoe device with respect to a snow-
covered surface. On page 7 of the answer, the examiner
states that the claims are interpreted based on the
limitations explicitly recited in the claims, namely a
combination snowshoe and ski, which may operate in a
snowshoe mode and a ski mode, and states that Ramboz
teaches a device which includes both elements associated
with a snowshoe, and at least one element associated with a
skiing operation, and as such, is deemed to be a snowshoe
and ski combination.
We begin with the claim interpretation of the claimed
“combination snowshoe and ski”. Paragraph 8 on page 4 of
appellants’ specification indicates that the multipurpose
snowshoe/ski includes an interchangeable, hinged foot plate
that may have a smooth bottom surface for functioning as a
ski, or a corrugated bottom surface for functioning as a
snowshoe. This combination concept is not recited in
claims 1, 8, and 12. Claim 1 recites “a plurality of
traction portions which extend generally downward from a
horizontal plane of the deck when in snowshoe mode”. Claim
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007