Appeal No. 98-1026
Application 08/423,067
surrounding the support surface. The box-like marginal
portion forms a ball return for conveying pocketed balls to a
central ball receiving station 82. The disparate nature of
the Levenhagen and Bender references is clear upon even a
cursory inspection of the drawings thereof. In an nutshell,
there is no suggestion in either of the references, or need in
view of their divergent objectives and structures, for their
combination.
In our view, it is only through the use of hindsight
knowledge gleaned from first reading appellants’ disclosure
that the Levenhagen and Bender references can be combined to
arrive at the subject matter of appealed claims 1, 3-7, 11-15
and 17-21. We are therefore unable to agree with the examiner
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at
the subject matter of these claims based on the teachings of
Levenhagen and Bender. It follows that the standing rejection
thereof cannot be sustained.
We have also carefully reviewed the Marschak reference
additionally relied upon by the examiner in rejecting claims
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007