Ex Parte Trask et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 14, 2008

10466498 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 14, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID V. TRASK, BRIAN C. TRASK, VALORIE J. DOWNS,
and RENAE L. TRASK SCHWARTZ
____________

Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: August 14, 2008
____________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, LORA M. GREEN, and
RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-20
and 22-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to snowshoes comprising a “binding”
anchored to a “flotation platform.”
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

Claims 1-29 are pending; claim 21 is allowed; claims 1-20 and 22-29
stand finally rejected (App. Br. 2). Appellants appeal from the following
final rejections:
1. Claims 1-4 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Warner (U.S. Patent No. 5,901,471, issued May 11, 1999) (Ans. 3);
2. Claims 1-15, 17-20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Wallace (U.S. Patent No. 4,620,375, issued Nov. 4, 1986)
(Ans. 3);
3. Claims 22-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Warner
and Campbell (U.S. Patent No. 5,309,652, issued May 10, 1994) (Ans. 4);
4. Claims 16 and 22-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wallace and Campbell (Ans. 4); and
5. Claims 22-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as
indefinite (Ans. 3).
We focus on the following claims which are illustrative of the rejected
subject matter:
1. In a snowshoe in which footwear is attached to a binding anchored to a
flotation platform by means of connection structure, the improvement which
comprises: constructing and arranging said connection structure as a fixture
having its constituent
components carried in attached combination between said binding and
said platform and being capable of:
decoupling said binding from said platform by means of a quick-
release operation; and
coupling said binding to said platform by means of a quick-connect
operation.

5. A snowshoe comprising:
a flotation platform carrying first connection structure;
a binding comprising traction enhancing structure adapted for use
independent of said flotation platform, said binding being attachable to
2
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

footwear and further comprising second connection structure, said first and
second connection structure cooperatively forming a quick-connect fixture
operable to couple said binding to said platform while said binding is
attached to said footwear, wherein;
when coupled to said platform, said binding is supported for rotation
about a pivot axis substantially defined by rigid axle structure.

10. A snowshoe, comprising:
a flotation platform having a deck portion with an opening configured
to receive a binding assembly;
a said binding assembly; and
quick-release connection means constructed and arranged to couple
said binding with respect to said flotation platform such that said binding
assembly is positioned and enabled to pivot within said opening; wherein:
when coupled to said platform, said binding is supported for rotation
about a pivot axis substantially defined by rigid axle structure; and
constituent components of said quick-release connection means are
carried in attached combination between said binding and said platform.

15. A snowshoe comprising:
a flotation platform carrying a first connection structure;
a binding comprising second connection structure, said first and
second connection structure adapted cooperatively to form a quick-connect
fixture whereby to couple said binding to said platform; and
retaining structure carried by one connection structure and being
biased to urge said retaining structure into a retaining position for
cooperating structure of the other connection structure.

22. An apparatus, comprising a binding carrying a crampon and associable
with a flotation platform having an adjustable footprint size such that a
variable size footprint disposed under said crampon is presented to snow.

23. The apparatus according to 22, said platform being removable in a
quick-detach operation from said binding to present a minimum size
footprint to snow, said footprint comprising a walking surface of said
crampon.

3
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

24. The apparatus according to 22, wherein said platform comprises a tool-
free adjustable mechanism operable to change a footprint size of said
platform.

CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The claims are directed to snowshoes having a structure for
connecting a “binding” to a “flotation platform.” The binding is attached to
footwear (Spec. 2-3) and the flotation platform is for walking on snow. A
crampon for walking on ice, which can be used apart from the snowshoe
platform, can also be attached to the binding (Spec. 4: ¶ 12).
There are four independent claims: 1, 5, 10, and 15.
In claim 1, the binding is connected to the flotation platform by a
“connection structure” which is coupled by “quick-connect operation” and
decoupled by “quick-release operation.” The components of the connection
structure are “carried in attached combination between” the binding and
platform.
The connection structure in claim 10 is characterized as a “quick-
release connection means.” As in claim 1, the components of the connection
structure are “carried in attached combination between” the binding and
platform.
In claims 5 and 15, a “quick-connect fixture” is operable to connect
the binding to the platform.
The Specification explains what is meant by a connecting structure
which involves “quick-release” and “quick-connect” mechanisms:
As used in this disclosure, the term “quick-release” is intended
to contrast the connection fixtures of this invention with
mechanisms which require removal of the snowshoe from a
hiker’s foot to effect a decoupling of the binding from the
snowshoe. It is not practical, for example, to remove the rivets,
4
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

pins, and bolts of the pivot connections currently in use without
first removing the snowshoes. Even then, the decoupling
manipulations for such pivot connections require the use of
tools, and generally impose the necessity for keeping track of
removed small parts (pins, bolts, etc.)[.] The quick-release
connection fixtures of this invention can sometimes be operated
either to couple or decouple the binding from a snowshoe
without removal of the binding from the boot (or foot) of the
hiker. Such coupling and decoupling can also be referred to as
providing “step-in” and “step-out” capability, respectively.
While operation of some embodiments of this invention might
be assisted by the use of a small tool; e.g., a screwdriver or ski
pole tip, such embodiments are not currently preferred.
(Spec. 6: ¶ 17.)

However, certain embodiments of quick-connect or quick-
release fixtures within the ambit of the present invention may
best be operated with the binding being separated from
footwear. . . . In any case, quick-connect or quick-release
fixtures according to the present invention will be arranged for
all structure associated with the connection to remain attached
to a binding or platform. Such an arrangement effectively
precludes loss of connection hardware.
(Spec. 6: ¶ 18.)
While the Specification indicates that “quick-release” is “intended to
contrast” with certain prior art mechanisms that “require removal of the
snowshoe from the hiker’s foot” to decouple the binding from the snowshoe
(Spec. 6: ¶ 17), this is not a description of the “quick-release” structure.
Rather, it is a functional description. Thus, we interpret the claimed “quick-
release” mechanism to read on any structure that would permit the hiker to
decouple the binding without removing the snowshoe from the foot.
It is further stated that it “is not practical … to remove rivets, pins,
and bolts . . . currently in use without first removing the snowshoes” (id.).
5
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

However, we do not find that this statement clearly excludes the use of such
parts from the claimed “quick-release” or “quick-connect” operation,
particularly because the Specification also states that “certain embodiments
of quick-connect or quick-release fixtures within the ambit of the present
invention may best be operated with the binding being separated from
footwear” (Spec. 6: ¶ 18).
The Specification states that “quick-connect or quick-release fixtures
according to the present invention will be arranged for all structure
associated with the connection to remain attached to a binding or platform”
(Spec. 6: ¶ 18). In this case, the terms “quick-connect fixture” and “quick-
release fixture” would be reasonably interpreted to mean that all components
of the connect structure remain attached in the connected and unconnected
condition.
Claim 22
Claim 22 is drawn to an “apparatus, comprising a binding carrying a
crampon and associable with a flotation platform.” The term “associable”
means “capable of being associated.” Thus, we do not interpret the claim to
require that the flotation platform is part of the apparatus; only that the
platform be capable of being associated with the apparatus.

1. ANTICIPATION BY WARNER
Claims 1-4 and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Warner.
Issue
The Examiner’s position is that Warner describes a snowshoe having
a flotation platform 10 and connection structures 36, 38, 40, and 42 form a
6
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

“connection structure” that together are capable of “quick-release” and
“quick-connect” operation as required by claim 1 (Ans. 3). These aspects of
Warner’s snowshoe are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
Appellants’ contend that the “crampon” (a part of the connection
structure 36) only locks the front part of the structure 36 (Fig. 3) to the plate
38 (Fig. 2) when the heel is pushed downward into the plate 38 (App. Br. 5).
Appellants argue that “[n]o structure is available to ‘lock’ the crampon in an
assembled position, expect the boot 20 and strap 34” which are not “carried
in attached combination” by the floatation platform 10 as required by claim
1 (id. at 5-6).
In view of these conflicting positions, we frame the issue as follows:
whether the Examiner erred in finding that Warner describes a connection
structure between a snowshoe binding and platform that is capable of
“quick-release” and “quick-connect” operation as required by claim 1.
The prior art
1. Warner describes a “snowshoe is configured to receive a boot-
mounted crampon” (Warner, Abstract).
2. “[L]eft and right portions of the tooth assembly near the toe of the
crampon fit closely within a clearance at each side of the plate, so that as the
crampon is placed into the plate the crampon becomes located and registered
to a certain position, rigidly holding the crampon on the plate” (Warner,
Abstract).
3. “The snowshoe is adapted to receive a crampon secured to a user’s
boot, in a step-in arrangement affording quick and efficient securement of
the boot and crampon to the snowshoe. The crampon’s teeth then serve as
7
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

snowshoe cleats. The snowshoe can quickly be removed from the boot and
crampon when ice is again encountered” (Warner, at col. 1, ll. 49-55).
4. Figures 2 and 3, reproduced below, show an embodiment of
Warner’s snowshoe.

Figure 2 shows a snowshoe, and Figure 3 shows a crampon that can be worn
with the snowshoe of Figure 2 (Warner col. 2, ll. 37-39).
5. Warner’s Figure 2 shows a snowshoe 10 with decks 14 and 18
attached to harness mounting plate 38 which has open areas 26 and 28.
6. The “open areas 28 and 26 provide space for a user wearing a boot
and a crampon [22] . . . to step into the snowshoe and lock the crampon to
the snowshoe” (Warner, at col. 3, ll. 6-9).
7. The crampon 22, shown in Figure 3, can be attached to the harness
mounting plate 38 in Figure 2, “by simply stepping into the snowshoe in a
toe-down position when the crampon is worn on the user’s boot” (Warner, at
col. 3, ll. 19-23).
8. The crampon teeth 40 fit through a clearance 42 in the open space
28 of the plate 38 and engage a structure 44 which then locks the crampon in
place (Warner, at col. 3, ll. 30-48).
8
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

Comparison between the prior art and claim 1
9. Claim 1 comprises a snowshoe having a “binding anchored to a
flotation platform” by a “connection structure.”
10. The “connection structure” comprises “components carried in
attached combination between said binding and said platform” and can be
coupled and decoupled by “quick-connect” and quick-release” operation.
11. Warner’s snowshoe has a flotation platform (SNOWSHOE 10, with
decks 14 and 18, and harness mounting 38) (FF5; see Fig. 2) and a binding
(CRAMPON 22) (FF7; see Fig. 3) as required of the claimed snowshoe.
12. The snowshoe platform 10 comprises a harness mounting plate
38, with open areas 26 and 28, and a structure 44 which together form a part
of a structure for anchoring or connecting crampon 22 to the platform (FF5,
6, 8), meeting the limitations of claim 1 of a “connection structure” for
connecting the binding (crampon 22) to the flotation platform (snowshoe
10).
13. The crampon 22 has teeth 40 which “lock” into structure 44 of the
snowshoe 10 (FF8) and thus form the complementary components of a
connection structure for connecting the crampon (“binding”) to the
snowshoe 10 as in claim 1.
14. The components are fixed parts of the platform 10 and crampon
22 and thus satisfy the limitation of a claim 1 of a connection structure
“carried in attached combination” between the two connecting parts (FF10).
15. The crampon 22 is attached to the snowshoe 10 by stepping into
the snowshoe with a crampon secured to the user’s boot and is “quickly . . .
removed” by disengaging the crampon from the snowshoe (FF3) – without
9
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

any accessory structures such as pins and bolts – and without the need to
remove the snowshoe assembly from the user’s foot.
16. Warner’s snowshoe is therefore operated by “quick-connect” and
“quick-release” mechanisms as in claim 1 because the binding and platform
can be removed without the need to remove the snowshoe assembly from the
user’s foot and without any accessory structures such as pins and bolts
(FF15).
Analysis
Claims 1-4
The issue in this rejection is whether Warner describes quick-connect
and quick-release structures to couple and decouple a binding from a
flotation platform of a snowshoe. The findings with respect to Warner’s
coupling system and how it meets the structures recited in claim 1 are set
forth above. As summarized in these findings, there is adequate evidence to
support the Examiner’s conclusion that Warner’s snowshoe meets all the
limitations of claim 1, anticipating it. Thus, we turn to Appellants’ rebuttal
arguments and evidence.
Appellants argue “that a boot 20 is an essential spacer component
required in conjunction with strap 24 to complete a connection between the
crampon 22 and flotation platform[ ]10” (App. Br. 5). They assert “that
strap 24 is required to resist decoupling motion of a heel boot 20 from
proximity to plate 38. No other structure is disclosed by Warner operable to
resist a decoupling rotation of crampon 22 relative to plate 38” (id.).
Appellants also state that “[n]o structure is available to ‘lock’ the crampon in
an assembled position, except the boot 20 and strap 24” (id.). In sum, it is
Appellants’ position that, because the boot is part of the claimed quick-
10
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

connect and quick-release connection structures, it is not “carried in attached
combination between said binding and said platform” as recited in claim 1
(App. Br. 5-6).
This argument is not persuasive. Warner clearly teaches that the
crampon 22 (the “binding” of claim 1) has teeth 40 which lock it to the
harness plate 38 of the snowshoe platform (the “flotation platform” of claim
1) (FF2, 3, 6-8). In particular, Warner states:
[L]eft and right portions of the tooth assembly near the toe of
the crampon fit closely within a clearance at each side of the
plate, so that as crampon is placed into the plate the crampon
becomes located and registered to a certain position, rigidly
holding the crampon on the plate
(Warner, Abstract; FF2; emphasis added).

[O]pen areas 28 and 26 [of the harness plate 38] provide space
for a user wearing a boot and crampon [22] . . . to step into the
snowshoe and lock the crampon to the snowshoe
(Warner, at col. 3, ll. 6-9; FF 6; emphasis added).

While the boot may participate in engaging the binding (Warner’s
crampon) with the platform (Warner’s snowshoe), Warner expressly states
that the crampon is rigidly held by and locked to the snowshoe platform (see
supra). These structures “anchor” the binding to the flotation platform as
required by claim 1. Thus, we do not find support for Appellants’ position
that the boot is a “constituent component” of Warner’s coupling fixture
(App. Br. 6). To the contrary, we find that the “connection structure”
comprises “components carried in attached combination between said
binding and said platform”, meeting the limitations of claim 1 (FF10).
11
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Warner. Claims 2-4 falls with claim 1 because separate
reasons for their patentability were not provided.

Claims 22-24
17. Claim 22 is drawn to an apparatus comprising “a binding carrying
a crampon.” As we have interpreted the claim, the recited “flotation
platform having an adjustable footprint size” is not a required component of
the claimed apparatus.
18. Warner describes a crampon 22 which acts as a binding for
holding a boot and structures for attachment to snowshoe platform, and thus
meet all the elements of the claimed invention.
Appellants argue “that the flotation platform has an adjustable size.”
However, claim 22 as we have interpreted it does not require the platform to
be part of the claimed apparatus. Consequently, this argument is
unpersuasive and the rejection of claim 22 is affirmed.
With regard to claims 23 and 24, which further limit the platform’s
structure, because the claims do not require that the platform be a part of the
claimed apparatus, the limitations do not distinguish the claimed structure
from the prior art and thus we affirm the rejection of these claims.

2. ANTICIPATION BY WALLACE
Claims 1-15, 17-20, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Wallace.
12
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

Issue
The Examiner finds Wallace describes a snowshoe having a binding
104 which connects to a snowshoe flotation platform 100 that meets the
limitations of the “quick-release” and “quick-connect” structures as in
claims 1, 5, 10, and 15.
Appellants argue that Wallace’s structure for connecting a crampon
(the “binding” of claims 1, 5, 10, and 15) to a flotation platform includes
components which are separated from attachment to the binding and
platform, and thus do not meet the claimed requirement that “constituent
components” of the connection fixture as “carried in attached combination
between said binding and said platform” as recited in claim 1 and 10, and
required by the definition of “quick-connect fixture” recited in claims 5 and
15.
The prior art
19. Wallace describes a “quick release mounting system for foot plate
104” as “shown in FIGS. 13-15” (Wallace, at col. 5, ll. 14-15).
20. The foot plate receives a snow boot (Wallace, at col. 1, ll. 48-52).
21. “Such a system is useful in a situation where the surface
conditions change from snow to ice or the opposite. The system shown here
allows the wearer to remove or attach the foot plate/crampon assembly from
or to snowshoe 100. The foot plate quick release system includes a
removable pin 132, the shaft of which extends through bushing hole 127 on
either side of snowshoe 100, through the center hole of spacer 136 and into
hinge 126 in foot plate 104 stopping just short of screw 109, adjacent to
fixed center pin 131” (Wallace, at col. 5, ll. 15-24).
13
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

22. The removable pin 132 is completely removed to detach the
footplate from the snowshoe.
Comparison between the prior art and claims 1 and 10
23. Claims 1 and 10 are directed to a snowshoe have a “binding” and
“flotation platform” which are coupled together by a “connection structure.”
24. The “connection structure” comprises “components carried in
attached combination between said binding and said platform” and can be
coupled and decoupled by “quick-connect” or quick-release” operation.
25. The removable pins 132 described by Wallace are attached to the
binding and platform when the latter structures are anchored together
(FF21), and thus are “carried in attached combination between said binding
and said platform” (FF24) as required by claims 1 and 10.
26. Thus, Wallace’s “quick release mounting system” meets the
limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Analysis
Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11
Appellants argue that Wallace’s removable pins 132 do not remain
attached to either the binding or platform and therefore do not satisfy the
explicit requirement of “[b]ase claims 1 and 10 . . . that all constituent
components (of the quick-release connection) are carried in attached
combination (between the binding and platform)” (App. Br. 7-8).
This argument is not persuasive. While claims 1 and 10 recite that the
components of the connection structure “are carried in attached combination
between” the binding and platform, the claims do not require that the
components are “carried” prior to when the connection is made. In Wallace,
once the components are joined – the binding, platform, and pin 132 are
14
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

carried in combination together – and thus meet the limitations of claims 1
and 10.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 10.
Claims 2 and 11 were not separately argued and thus falls with claims 1 and
10.

Claims 3 and 4
Claims 3 and 4 depend on claim 1, but recite that the binding is
configured for “step-in connectivity” and “step-out separation”, respectively.
Appellants argue that Wallace fails to disclose “step-in” or “step-out”
capability, but “[i]n contrast . . . discloses inserting an axle 108, or pair of
stub axles 132, into engagement in receiving bores” (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner does not respond to Appellants’ argument, which is
consistent with the language of claims 3 and 4. Consequently, we reverse
the rejection of claims 3 and 4.

Claims 7, 12-14, 17, 19, and 20
Appellants separately argue claims 7, 12-14, 17, 19, and 20, arguing
that each of the claims contain a structural element which is not taught by
Wallace (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner bears the burden of establishing prima facie
anticipation of the claimed subject matter by providing evidence that all
elements of the claimed invention are present either expressly or inherently
in the prior art. In this case, the Examiner does not does not explain nor
provide any evidence that Wallace discloses the claimed elements. Thus,
15
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

because the Examiner’s burden was not met, we are compelled to reverse the
rejection of claims 7, 12-14, 17, 19, and 20 as anticipated by Wallace.

Claims 5-9 and 15-20
With regard to independent claims 5 and 15 (which do not recite the
“attached combination” limitation), Appellants contend that the recited
“quick-connect fixture” is defined in the Specification to mean that “all
structure associated with the connection . . . remain attached to a binding or
platform” (Spec. 6: ¶ 18; see App. Br. 3, 7; see supra “Claim
interpretation”). In this case, we agree with Appellants that, when in light of
the Specification, persons of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably
interpret the claimed “quick-connect fixture” to mean that connection
components remain attached to the binding or platform even after the latter
structures have been decoupled. Since the removable pin 132 is completely
removed when the footplate is detached from the snowshoe (FF22), we
agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that Wallace’s
snowshoe meets all the limitations of claim 1 (FF23-27). For this reason, we
reverse the rejection of claims 5 and 15, and dependent claims 6-9 and 16-
20.

Claims 22-24
27. Claim 22 is drawn to an apparatus comprising “a binding carrying
a crampon” and which is “associable with a flotation platform having an
adjustable footprint size.” As we have interpreted the claim, the recited
“flotation platform” is not a required component of the claimed apparatus.
16
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

28. Wallace’s “foot plate” receives a snow boot (FF20) and thus is a
“binding” as in claim 22.
29. The “foot plate” and “crampon” are assembled together (FF21)
and thus meets the limitations of claim 22 requiring that the binding is
“carrying a crampon” (FF27).
As all the limitations of claim 22 are met, we conclude that the claim
is anticipated by Wallace. Appellants’ argue that Wallace does not describe
an adjustable platform with the additional limitations recited in claims 23
and 24 (App. Br. 8). However, because the platform is not a part of the
claimed apparatus, these arguments are not persuasive.
For the foregoing reason, we affirm the rejection of claims 22-24 as
anticipated by Wallace.

3. OBVIOUSNESS OVER WARNER IN VIEW OF CAMPBELL
Claims 22-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Warner and Campbell.
The prior art
30. Campbell teaches a structural means for adjusting the size of a
snowshoe platform (Ans. 4).
Reason to combine the prior art
31. The Examiner finds that persons of ordinary skill in the art would
have had reason to modify Warner’s snowshoe platform by making it
adjustable as taught by Campbell “to allow the user to adjust the size of the
platform for different snow conditions and users needs” (Ans. 4).

17
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

Analysis
We have interpreted independent claim 22 to read on a binding and a
crampon, but not to require that they be associated with a flotation platform
(FF; see “Claim Interpretation”). For this reason, we have already
concluded that Warner anticipates claim 22; thus, it is unnecessary to
address the additional prior art cited by the Examiner, since Warner alone is
anticipatory. While we need not reach the obviousness issue in light of our
affirmance of the rejection of claim 22 as anticipated, because the issue has
been fully briefed, we will address Appellants’ argument in the interest of
judicial efficiency; nonetheless, our analysis as set forth below is not to be
construed as a basis for affirming the rejection.
In setting forth a case of obviousness, “it can be important to identify
a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does . . .
. because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks
long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be
combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.” KSR Int'l v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). In this case, the Examiner
provides a logical reason as to why persons of ordinary skill in the art would
have been prompted to combine the disclosures of Warner and Campbell to
have made the claimed invention (FF 31). Appellants argue that the
references are “not logically combinable” because the flotation platforms in
each reference have different structures and therefore Warner could not be
modified to accept Campbell’s extension structures (App. Br. 9). However,
Warner’s flotation platform could readily be replaced with Campbell’s (Ans.
18
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

7-8) without having to structurally modify Warner’s platform as argued by
Appellants.
Appellants separately argues claim 23, which has the quick-release
limitation found in claim 1 and others. For the reasons set forth above in the
anticipation rejection over Warner, we find this limitation met by Warner.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 22 and 23.
Claims 24-29 fall with claims 22 and 23 because separate reasons for their
patentability were not provided.

4. OBVIOUSNESS OVER WALLACE IN VIEW OF CAMPBELL
Claims 16 and 22-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Wallace and Campbell.
Claim 16
Because we reversed the rejection of claim 15 as anticipated by
Wallace (supra at p. 16), and Campbell does not address Wallace’s
deficiencies, we also reverse the rejection of claim 16, which is dependent
on claim 15.

Claims 22-25, 28, and 29
We have interpreted independent claim 22 to read on a binding and a
crampon, but not to require that they be associated with a flotation platform
(FF; see “Claim Interpretation”). For this reason, we have already
concluded that Wallace anticipates claim 22; thus, it is unnecessary to
address the additional prior art cited by the Examiner, since Wallace alone is
anticipatory. Nonetheless, as the obviousness issue was fully briefed, we
shall address Appellants’ arguments, but we do so only in the interest of
19
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

judicial efficiency; thus, our discussion below of claim 22 is not to be
construed as a basis for affirming the rejection.
The ground for the rejection of claim 22 is the same as it was for the
combination of Warner with Campbell (see FF 30, 31; Ans. 4). Thus, it is
unnecessary for us to repeat it again.
Appellants argue that there was no suggestion in the references
themselves “to make the structural changes as would be required to form a
structure within the ambit of the rejected claims” (App. Br. 10).
This argument is not persuasive. Precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of a claim are not required to reach a conclusion of
obviousness. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. “[T]he teaching, motivation, or
suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than
expressly stated in the references. . . . The test for an implicit showing is
what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988
(Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, we agree with the Examiner that Campbell’s
teaching about the advantages of adjustable flotation platforms (see Ans. 4)
would have reasonably suggested to persons of ordinary skill its application
to other snowshoe devices, including Warner’s.
We affirm the rejection of claim 22 as obvious over Warner and
Campbell. Claims 23-25, 28, and 29 fall with claim 22 because separate
reasons for their patentability were not presented.

20
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

Claim 26
Claim 26 is directed to a snowshoe comprising a “platform
comprising a segment arranged for telescopic extension.” Appellants argue
that “nothing in any combination of” Warner and Campbell “can logically be
construed as suggesting the telescopic extension required by claim 26” (App.
Br. 10).
The Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Warner of a
“telescopic extension” nor does the Examiner provide a rationale as to why
such a structure would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the
art. While precise teachings directed to an element of a claim are
unnecessary to establish prima facie obviousness, the Examiner still has the
burden of explaining why a claimed element would have been obvious to
persons of ordinary skill in the art. Because such burden has not been met
here, we are compelled to reverse the rejection of claim 26.

Claim 27
Claim 27 is directed to a snowshoe comprising “said platform
comprising a first segment arranged in pivotal connection to rotate, with
respect to a second segment to which said first segment is connected.”
Appellants argue that cited prior art does not suggest the “rotational
arrangement” recited in claim 27 (App. Br. 10).
The Examiner has not addressed this limitation of claim 27 and
therefore has not met the burden of establishing prima facie obviousness of
the claim. Because such burden has not been met, we are compelled to
reverse the rejection of claim 27.

21
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

5. REJECTION UNDER § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
Claims 22-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The Examiner states that the phrase
adjustable footprint size is part of the floatation [sic] platform
instead of the crampon/binding causes the reference to the
footprint size in the dependent claims and the later recited
phrase in claims 22, i.e. a variable size footprint disposed under
said crampon, to be confusing, vague, and indefinite.
(Ans. 3.)
We do not agree. Claim 22 recites that the platform has “an
adjustable footprint size” which would be understood by persons of ordinary
skill in the art to mean that its size, and corresponding footprint it makes on
the snow, can be adjusted, e.g., to accommodate different uses. The claim
also states that platform size is adjusted “such that a variable size footprint
disposed under said crampon is presented to snow.” This also would be
understood to mean that, when the platform is assembled with the crampon,
the platform is underneath the crampon (“under said crampon”) and the
variably sized footprint of the platform is displayed to the snow.
The rejection of claims 22-29 under § 112, second paragraph, is
therefore reversed.

CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-4 and 22-29 and reverse
the rejections of claims 5-20:
1. The rejection of claims 1-4 and 22-24 as anticipated by Warner is
affirmed.
22
Appeal 2008-2400
Application 10/466,498

2. The rejection of claims 3-9 and 12-20 as anticipated by Wallace is
reversed and the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 22-24 over the
same reference is affirmed.
3. The rejection of claims 22-29 as obvious over Warner and
Campbell is affirmed.
4. The rejection of claims 16, 26, and 27 as obvious over Wallace is
reversed and the obviousness rejection of claims 22-25, 28, and 29 over the
same reference is affirmed.
5. The rejection of claims 22-29 as indefinite is reversed.

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ssc:

BRIAN C. TRASK
3601 EAST HERMES DRIVE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84124
23