Appeal No. 96-1820
Application No. 08/189,140
in weight and size than a regulation baseball used in game 3
situations, but which has the same “feel” and “dynamic
characteristics” as a regulation baseball. According to the
appellant, the inventive baseball is more challenging to hit in
batting practice, which results in improving the player’s ability
to hit a regulation baseball. See specification, page 3.
As we understand the rejection, it is the examiner’s
position that since the construction and materials of a
regulation baseball are known, as acknowledged in the cited
portions of the appellant’s specification, and since it is known
from Junior Balls to make baseballs smaller in size than a
regulation baseball, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art reduce the size of all of the
components of a regulation baseball proportionally, suggestion
being found in the desire to permit use by smaller players. The
examiner further opines that the appellant has failed to
establish that the claimed dimensions are critical. See Answer,
pages 4 and 5.
3The examiner and the appellant have agreed that the term
“regulation baseball” defines a baseball that meets the
requirements of Rule 1.09 of the Official Baseball Rules, which
governs amateur and professional baseball in the United States,
as has been referenced on page 1 of the appellant’s specification
and described on page 2 of the Brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007