Appeal 2007-2069
Application 10/723,000
to be positioned behind and below the primary stirrup when the strap hangs
down from the saddle” are mere expressions of intended use. Accordingly,
the language directed to the position of an attachable auxiliary saddle stirrup
relative to the position of the primary stirrup of a saddle to which the
auxiliary saddle stirrup may or may not be attached does not necessarily
further limit the “auxiliary saddle stirrup” of claim 1.
2. Claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Seal
Seal describes an auxiliary saddle stirrup comprising a strap having an
upper end and a lower end. The upper end of the strap is attachable “on any
saddle having a horn, stirrup bar or any other device by which . . . [the
claimed mounting stirrup assembly] may be attached to the saddle thereby
providing the equestrian with a safe convenient method of mounting said
saddle” (Seal, col. 3, ll. 31-35). The lower end of the strap is attached to the
foot loop of a normal riding stirrup (Seal, Figs. 1, 3, and 6-8; Claims 1-4).
We find that Seal describes every element of the subject matter defined by
Appellant’s Claim 1. We have already concluded that the positioning
language that Appellant argues patentably distinguishes the claimed
auxiliary saddle mounting stirrup from the mounting saddle stirrup assembly
described by Seal does not further limit the full scope of the “attachable”
auxiliary saddle stirrup defined by Appellant’s Claim 1. Accordingly, we
find that the subject matter of Claim 1 would have been obvious in view of
Seal's disclosure, anticipation being the epitome of obviousness.
3. Claims 8 and 18 would have been obvious in view of Seal
Claim 8 is directed to a saddle comprising a seat having both primary
and auxiliary stirrups attached to the seat, the auxiliary stirrup "hanging
downwardly from the seat behind and below the primary stirrup” (Br. App’x
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013