Appeal 2007-1883
Application 10/469,203
1 includes claim 31, which is objected to rather than rejected, in this group in the
2 Answer.
3 Claims 34-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
4 Gorenschek in view of Gonzales.
5 Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
6 Horton.
7 ISSUES
8 The issues for our decision in this appeal are:
9 the rejection of claims 37 and 38 under the first and second paragraph
10 of 35 U.S.C. § 112;
11 the anticipation rejections based on either of the reference disclosures
12 of Gorenschek and Horton; and
13 the obviousness rejections based on the combined teachings of the
14 prior art.
15 FINDINGS OF FACT
16 Gorenschek discloses a saddle for a horse or the like. The saddle is
17 composed of left and right bar members 34, seat member 25, with cutout 26, and
18 pommel-like means 14. The seat member of Gorenschek has a bridge in the
19 medial portion formed by the seat cutout 26 and the pommel cutaway portion 13.
20 Neither the pommel-like means 14 or the bridge formed by the seat cutout and
21 pommel cutaway portion are disclosed as adjustable.
22 Horton discloses a saddle composed of bars, a, connected by arches b and bī.
23 The front arch b is connected via hinge joints c to the bars a, allowing a swiveling
24 movement. (Horton p. 1, ll. 38, 39). The rear arch b′ is attached to the side bars, a,
25 by means of a socket d in which the extremity of bar b′ fits and is secured therein
26 by a set screw e. The rear bridge thus can be adjusted by means of washers e′
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013