Appeal No. 1999-2035 Page 11
Application No. 07/772,698
player to hit a ball into a selected sector, thus better
preparing the player for competitive play. The claimed
nine (9) sectors is seen to be a mere design choice since
such would merely depend on the level of skill desired to
be obtained.
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require "means for physically
identifying at least one sector on one of said playing areas"
wherein a sector is defined as "one of nine areas for each
playing area determined by dividing each playing area into
three equal lanes parallel to the net and into three equal
zones perpendicular to the net." It is our opinion that the
"means for physically identifying at least one sector on one
of said playing areas" limitation is not suggested by the
prior art as applied by the examiner. In that regard, it is
our view that the teachings of Bourgin would not have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made any modification to the tennis court of
Grant and thus would not have led an artisan to arrive at the
claimed invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007