Appeal 2007-1883
Application 10/469,203
1 a bridge portion at the cantle end. Furthermore, the bridges in Gorenschek, while
2 flexible, are not seen as adjustable.
3 However, we will affirm the § 102 rejection of claim 37 as lacking novelty
4 over Horton. In our view, the provision of the screw and adjusting washers teaches
5 that the rear connection in Horton is at least somewhat adjustable. This satisfies
6 the limitations of claim 37. However, we reverse the rejection of claim 38 as
7 unpatentable over Horton, inasmuch as a fabric bridge is not shown in Horton.
8 We reverse the rejections of claims 39-42 as unpatentable over Gorenschek
9 inasmuch as Gorenschek does not satisfy the limitation of the base claim 25, as we
10 pointed out, supra. Likewise with respect to claims 28-33 and claims 34-36
11 rejected on based on Gorenschek and the additional teachings of Pellew and
12 Gonzales, respectively, none of the references teaches an adjustable bridge at only
13 the pommel end of the saddle as claimed in the independent claim.
14 CONCLUSION
15 The rejection of claims 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
16 affirmed.
17 The rejection of claims 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
18 is reversed.
19 The rejection of claim 37 as lacking novelty over Horton is affirmed.
20 The rejection of claim 38 as unpatentable over Horton is reversed.
21 The rejection of claims 25-27 and 45-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
22 anticipated by Gorenschek is reversed.
23 The rejections of claims 39-48, 28-30, 32 and 33, and 33-46 as unpatentable
24 over Gorenschek, Gorenschek in view of Pellew, and Gorenschek in view of
25 Gonzalez, respectively, are reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013