Ex Parte ZATLIN - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2002-1250                                                                      Page 2                 
              Application No. 09/200,057                                                                                       


                                                      BACKGROUND                                                               
                      The appellant's invention relates to a method of heading a soccer ball.  A copy of                       
              the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.                                   


                      The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                          
              appealed claims are:                                                                                             
              Ryan                                  3,341,201                            Sep. 12, 1967                         
              Mitchell                              4,462,590                            July 31, 1984                         
              Romero                                4,698,852                            Oct. 13, 1987                         
              Ashinoff                              4,947,488                            Aug. 14, 1990                         
              Rife et al. (Rife)                    5,111,366                            May  5, 1992                          
              Horn                                  5,718,245                            Feb. 17, 1998                         


                      In addition to the prior art references set forth above, the examiner also relied                        
              upon the following non-prior art reference in rejecting the appealed claims:                                     
              Mech Site - Table of Coefficient Of Friction Values (Feb. 22, 2001)                                              


                      Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 to 9, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                            
              paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in                          
              such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is                         
              most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.1                                                        


                      1 It appears that dependent claims 3, 4 and 6 to 9 were intended to be included in this rejection.       
              See page 3, line 14, of the February 27, 2001 Office action.                                                     






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007