Appeal 2007-0195
Application 10/895,515
limitation in claim 5 that the hand support comprises a convex surface, the
upper side 30 of Liveoak's paddle blade 12 is convex, as illustrated in Figs. 2
and 2a (FF6). Thus, Liveoak satisfies the limitation.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant's arguments do not
demonstrate the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 11-16, 18,
20, and 21 as anticipated by Liveoak. The rejection is sustained.
We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the rejection of
claims 4, 9, 17, and 19 as unpatentable over Liveoak in view of Richmond.
Both of the modifications proposed by the Examiner would thwart the
objective of Liveoak to achieve a paddle capable of providing two different
paddling configurations, namely, a positive rake configuration and a
negative rake configuration (FF7). Specifically, the provision of flanges on
Liveoak's support platform (end region 26) for receiving a user's forearm
would limit the use of Liveoak's paddle to a single paddling configuration.
Likewise, the curved configuration of Liveoak's paddle blade 12 having an
upper side 30 with a dihedral curvature and a lower side 32 with a spoon
shaped curvature is instrumental in providing two different paddling
configurations for Liveoak's paddle. To eliminate the curvature of either the
upper side 30 or the lower side 32 to provide a substantially planar
propulsion surface would be counter to the objective of Liveoak. Where the
proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not
have been obvious. See Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d
1353, 1360, 52 USPQ2d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, a reference
teaches away from a modification when a person of ordinary skill, upon
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013