Appeal No. 2006-0602 3
Application No. 10/260,600
appellant’s brief (filed March 3, 2005) and reply brief (filed July
18, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to the
applied Martin patent, and to the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
have made the determination that the examiner’s § 102(b) rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 and 9 will not be sustained. Our
reasons follow.
Suffice to say that we agree with appellant’s assessment of
the teachings of Martin. As is apparent from Figures 1, 3, 4, 5a,
8 and 14, that patent discloses an ice skating arena having a
plurality of adjacent ice rinks (12, 12’) and a central module (16)
located between the rinks which comprises lobby space, locker
rooms, concession areas, etc., as well as spectator seating (28,
28’). Each of the rinks are surrounded by dasherboards (34), which
are best shown in Figures 5a and 8. Portions of the dasherboards
form first and second parallel rink sidewalls for the respective
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007