Appeal No. 2002-1900
Application 09/728,901
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Burrows 3,069,805 Dec. 25, 1962
Griffin 3,445,551 May 20, 1969
Cummings 4,863,174 Sep. 5, 1989
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2 and 4 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cummings in view of Burrows.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cummings in view of Burrows and Griffin.
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 8) and the
answer (Paper No. 9) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
DISCUSSION
Cummings, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
hand-held ball catching and throwing device generally similar to
that claimed by the appellant. One of Cummings’ objectives is
“to provide a catching surface having a shape adapted to receive
a ball in ballistic flight and which will smoothly and
progressively change the direction of the ball” (column 2, lines
2 through 5). To this end,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007