Appeal No. 98-0973
Application No. 08/538,419
The claimed ball also must have “a relatively thin walled
rigid shell to resist any deformation in its normal range of
use.” The Salisbury ball is disclosed as being “so thick as
to prevent pressure on the ball from inverting the curvature
of any particular section of the ball” and must be capable of
withstanding “the rough chewing of a dog” (page 1, column 1,
lines 45-55). This suggests that it is contemplated that some
deformation would occur. It therefore is our view that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have considered the
Salisbury ball to have the required “rigid” shell.
There also is no indication in Salisbury that the ball
has a “smooth, hard, decorative coating on the outer surface
of the shell.” In fact, it would appear, in our view, that in
order for the Salisbury ball to function as a toy for dogs,
such a coating would not be desirable.
Finally, as the examiner has admitted, Salisbury clearly
does not disclose or teach placing a figure 8 on the surface
at a plurality of locations.
Lambert discloses a billiard ball characterized by the
presence of a number of “level areas” (7), where symbols can
be placed. While no details are provided as to the material
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007