Appeal 2007-1883
Application 10/469,203
1 Appellant claims a saddle for horses and the like. Claim 25, reproduced
2 below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
3 25. A saddle, comprising:
4 a tree having a pommel end and a cantle end, the tree including
5 a bridge and two side panels, the two side panels being conjoined only at the
6 pommel end, the bridge conjoining the side panels and being adjustable to
7 vary an angle between the side panels;
8 a girth mounting provided for each of the side panels, the girth
9 mounting spreading loading along a length of each of the side panels;
10 a stirrup mount situated on each of the side panels;
11 a girth panel secured to each of the side panels; and
12 a seat supermounting the tree.
13
14 The references of record relied upon as evidence of obviousness are:
15 Horton GB 25,340 Jan. 19, 1911
16 Gorenschek US 3,835,621 Sep. 17, 1974
17 Pellew US 4,996,827 Mar. 5, 1991
18 Gonzales US 5,274,986 Jan. 4, 1994
19
20 Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as
21 failing to comply with the written description requirement.
22 Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as
23 indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
24 Appellant regards as the invention.
25 Claims 25-27 and claims 45 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
26 anticipated by Gorenschek.
27 Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Horton.
28 Claims 39-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 103 as unpatentable over
29 Gorenschek.
30 Claims 28-30, 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
31 unpatentable over Gorenschek in view of Pellew. The Examiner erroneously
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013