Appeal 2007-0052
Application 10/438,053
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-7, 14,
17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)1 as anticipated by Johnsen and claims
9, 10, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnsen.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed June 2, 2006). Appellant presents opposing arguments in
the Appeal Brief (filed May 10, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed July 19, 2006).
OPINION
The anticipation rejection
Appellant argues all the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
together as a group. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have selected claim 1 as the representative claim to
decide the appeal of the anticipation rejection, with claims 2-7, 14, 17, and
18 standing or falling with claim 1.
The Examiner (Answer 3) explains where the elements of claim 1 are
disclosed in Johnsen by labeling them in the marked-up Figs. 3 and 4 of
Johnsen appended to the Examiner’s Answer and Appellant does not dispute
these findings. Appellant’s only argument is that Johnsen, a golf ball
measuring device, is not an enabling disclosure of Appellant’s claimed
invention, a golf putting practice device. According to Appellant (Appeal
Br. 7-8), Johnsen enables a hand held measuring device but provides no
disclosure of using such as a golf putting practice device and “[n]o evidence
is provided that a person of ordinary skill in the art would somehow decide
to place the Johnson device on the ground and begin putting golf balls
1 Appellant does not dispute that Johnsen is available as prior art against
Appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013