Appeal No. 98-0973
Application No. 08/538,419
USPQ2d 1434, 1052 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988).
All of the claims stand rejected as being unpatentable
over Salisbury in view of Lambert. It is the examiner’s
position that Salisbury lacks only one of the limitations set
forth in independent claim 1, and that is “the teaching for
the ball to have a decorative coating at a plurality of spaced
locations” (Answer, page 3). We agree with the appellant that
this is only one of the limitations lacking in Salisbury.
The initial limitation recited in independent claim 1 is
that the relaxing device comprises a “hard” hollow spherical
ball. The appellant has provided guidance as to the
definition to be applied to “hard,” in that the suggested
materials from which it is to be made are “tough plastic,
aluminum, steel or iron,” with iron being preferred because of
its “sounding properties” (specification, page 3). We agree
with the appellant that this is not taught by Salisbury. The
ball disclosed by Salisbury is intended to be a toy for dogs,
and is described as being of “semihard rubber” (page 1, column
1, line 10) “to make the ball capable of withstanding the
chewing” while providing sufficient hardness in the hollow
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007