Appeal 2006-2155
Application 10/747,179
Conclusion regarding claims 1-3, 8, 10, 11, and 14-20
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 16 and
claims 2, 11, 14 and 17-20 that fall with them.
Claims 4-7, 9, 12, and 13
Claim 4 requires a tee having a recess shaped generally in conformance with
a shape of a tip of an American football, the football having a tip releasably
received within the recess.
The Examiner argues that “McKee et al shows the tee (210) has a recess
shaped generally in conformance with a shape of a tip of an American football,
said football having a tip releasably received within said recess (indentation 230,
please see figures 11A and 13C)” (Answer 4). Claim 3, however, from which
claim 4 depends, requires that the body recited in claim 1 is received on a tee. The
Examiner relies upon McKee’s tee 220 as corresponding to the Appellant’s body,
and McKee’s base 210, which receives the tee (fig. 13C) as corresponding to the
Appellant’s tee (Answer 3). Those components meet the requirements of the
Appellant’s claim 3. However, McKee’s football tip-shaped recess 230 is in
tee 220 (fig. 13C). There is no generally football tip-shaped recess in McKee’s
base 210 that receives the tee (figs. 12A and 13C). Thus, McKee does not disclose
both a base received on a tee, as required by the Appellant’s claim 3, and a
generally football tip-shaped recess in the tee as required by claim 3’s dependent
claim 4.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013