Appeal No. 96-1820
Application No. 08/189,140
the size specified in claim 1. The only information provided
about the core is that it is made of “molded wool.”
The same situation exists with regard to independent claim
4, wherein the diameter of the core is required to be “in the
range of 65% to 90% of the diameter of a regulation baseball.”
For the reasons expressed above with regard to claim 1, it is our
view that the prior art fails to teach this limitation. Claim 4
also requires a central core “formed of the same materials as a
regulation baseball core” (emphasis added). As we stated above,
the Junior Balls reduced size baseball is disclosed as having a
core of molded wool. According to the appellant, however, the
core of a regulation baseball must have a central core of cork,
rubber or other similar material to comply with Rule 1.09
(specification, page 1). On its face, therefore, the secondary
reference also fails to teach this feature of claim 4. Further
in this regard, the examiner has not provided evidence to
establish that the molded wool core of the Junior Balls baseball
is a “similar material” under Rule 1.09.
The examiner’s position that the appellant has failed to
demonstrate “criticality of the differences” (Answer, page 4) is
not well taken. In the disclosure, the appellant states that his
invention maintains the feel and the dynamic characteristics of a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007