Appeal 2007-2069
Application 10/723,000
Claim 8). Claim 18 is drawn to a method for a rider to mount a horse having
a saddle defined by Claim 8 secured thereto. From Appellant's
characterization of the Seal saddle (Specification 1:25–26; 2:20-21) and the
claimed saddle, it is evident that "behind" means "further from the horse's
head."
Seal appears to depict a Western saddle having the auxiliary stirrup
ahead of the primary stirrup (Figs. 1 and 2). Seal also expressly describes
and depicts an English saddle having the auxiliary stirrup even with the
primary stirrup (Figs. 3 and 6–8). In Seal's words, "When the loop 2 is
passed over the stirrup bar 7, the stirrup bar already has straps from the
saddle's regular stirrups attached to it. Therefore, the loop 2 has to be
sufficiently large to allow the loop 2 to fit over the stirrup bar when the
regular stirrup straps are already attached" (Seal, col. 2, ll. 34–39). In both
cases, the auxiliary stirrup hangs below the primary stirrup.
As to Claim 8, the issue is whether attaching the auxiliary stirrup to
the saddle at a position so as to hang behind and below the primary stirrup of
the saddle would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
art. To establish the obviousness of the claimed subject matter, all the claim
limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490
F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974).
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
[the] subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,
1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007). “If a person of ordinary skill in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013