Appeal No. 96-1820
Application No. 08/189,140
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
(1) Worth Catalogue, “Junior Balls,” January 9, 1976, page 7
(2) The appellant’s specification, page 4, lines 1 through 4 and
19 through 212
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the appellant’s specification (page 4,
lines 1 through 4 and 19 through 21) in view of Junior Balls.
For a complete explanation of the rejection, one must refer
to the Examiner's Answer, Paper No. 6 (the final rejection) and
Paper No. 3 (the first office action).
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
The objective of the appellant’s invention is to provide an
improved baseball for batting practice. In furtherance of this,
the invention comprises a baseball which is dimensionally smaller
2This was not listed as a reference by the examiner, but was
cited in the rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007