Appeal No. 97-0828
Application 08/445,540
merits of these rejections.
To begin with, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 rejections of claims 8 and 10 through 12. The scope of
these claims is indefinite for the reasons expressed below.
Accordingly, the standing prior art rejections thereof must
fall since they are necessarily based on speculative
assumption as to the meaning of the claims. See In re Steele,
305 F.2d 859, 862-63, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). It
should be understood, however, that our decision in this
regard is based solely on the indefiniteness of the claimed
subject matter, and does not reflect on the adequacy of the
prior art evidence applied in support of the rejections.
As for the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claim 1, Hale discloses a baseball catcher’s head
gear which is designed for quick and easy removal during the
course of play. The head gear includes a helmet 10 and a face
mask 18. The face mask is hingedly connected to the helmet at
an upper central location by a belt strap 20 riveted to the
helmet and looped around a securing bar 22 on the face mask.
The face mask also is connected to the helmet at a lower
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007