Appeal No. 98-0973
Application No. 08/538,419
be alleviated by looking to the teachings of Lambert. To make
the Salisbury ball hard, as in Lambert, would fly in the face
of its intended use and thus, from our perspective, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to do
so. Nor does Lambert suggest that the ball be of lesser size
than a billiard ball, about one and one half inches in
diameter, since it is a billiard ball. Finally, although
Lambert does not preclude the use of the figure 8 on the ball,
it does not suggest that this particular numeral be used,
which the appellant considers to be of significance in the
present invention (specification, pages 2 and 4).
It therefore is our conclusion that the teachings of the
two applied references fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim
1. This being the case, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 or, it follows, of claims 2-6, which
depend therefrom.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007