Appeal 2007-0195
Application 10/895,515
col. 2, ll. 64-66) and that supports 22a, 24a are not "rigid or fully bracing"
(Reply Br. 5).
3. Does Liveoak disclose or suggest the claimed paddle-blade position
(claims 5, 11, 12, 21)?
Appellant contends Liveoak does not disclose a hand support
comprising a convex surface so the hand is aligned in the paddle-blade
position, as so defined, and as known in the art (Appeal Br. 5 and Reply Br.
6).
With respect to the obviousness rejection, the following additional
issues are presented:
4. Would it have been obvious to modify Liveoak to add flanges to the
support surface (end 26) to more securely hold the forearm?
Appellant argues that Liveoak expressly moved away from the tight
gripping members taught by the prior art, such as Richmond (Appeal Br. 6-
7).
5. Would it have been obvious to modify Liveoak to make the
propulsion surface (either side 30 or side 32 of paddle 12)
substantially planar?
Appellant argues the flexibility of Liveoak renders the modification to
make the propulsion surface planar unreasonable given that the planarity
would not be maintained under paddling force (Reply Br. 7).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013