Appeal No. 97-4004
Application 08/459,417
thereon, the examiner asserts that none of the steps physically
performs any “training” action. We must point out, however, that
independent claim 24 is directed to a “method of training” which
includes the steps of supplying fluorescent material on a
plurality of positions on the bowler and illuminating the bowling
environment with ultraviolet light in such a manner that “the
bowler’s form may be easily viewed and analyzed through
illumination of said fluorescent material.” Clearly there is
nothing in the relied on prior art which either teaches or
suggests such a method.
The examiner has also taken the position that (1) “disco
balls” and fog machines (claims 9, 10, 22 and 23) and (2)
fluorescent decals (claims 7 and 17) and fluorescent decorations
on walls (claims 8 and 21) are all old and well known. The
appellants, on the other hand, on pages 6 and 7 of the reply
brief have argued that the examiner has cited no prior art to
show that this is the case. Thus challenged, it was incumbent
upon the examiner to cite a reference to show that these features
were in fact old and well known. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 2144.03 (6th ed., Rev. 3, Jul. 1997). The
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007