Appeal No. 1999-2035 Page 9
Application No. 07/772,698
that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation,
unfounded assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967),
cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied
by the examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
Grant discloses a no-line tennis court. As shown in
Figure 1, the tennis court 10 includes a net 12, near
serve-receiving zones 14 and 16 are pigmented or colored
differently
to define a single unidimensional boundary line 18 (similarly
serve-receiving zones 20 and 22 are differently colored), end
play zones 24 and 26 can be identically colored as well as the
two doubles zones 28 and 30. Grant teaches that with a
minimum of four different colors, each zone is distinguishable
from every contiguous zone, and both halves of the court
appear the same when viewed from the other side of the net.
In Figure 2, the court surface can be seen to be defined by a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007