Appeal 2006-3098
Application 10/762,413
1 art. From our review of the record, we agree with the Appellant (Br. 4) that
2 Elson is not analogous art for the following reasons.
3 Elson is directed to a valve mechanism for inflating balloons. The
4 valve mechanism is not in the same field of endeavor as a golf training aid.
5 In addition, because Elson is directed to a valve for inflating balloons, Elson
6 is not reasonably related to the problem Appellant is directed to, i.e., a
7 training apparatus for practicing straight hits of a golf ball. Since Elson is
8 not analogous art it would not have been obvious to modify Eslon to arrive
9 at the claimed invention.
10
11 CONCLUSION OF LAW
12 On the record before us, Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred
13 in holding that Elson would have suggested to an artisan the invention of
14 claim 11.
15 DECISION
16 The Examiner's rejection of claim 11 is reversed.
17
18 REVERSED
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 JRG
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013