Appeal No. 1998-3371
Application 08/614,383
sure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.,
837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
The appellants explain in the opening pages of their
specification that the cores of tennis balls conventionally
are pressurized to 10-15 psig in order to provide the required
rebound, but the pressure decreases over time because the gas
leaks through the core. The result is a tennis ball of dimin-
ished performance. Pressureless balls have been developed to
overcome this problem, but according to the appellants they
require increased stiffness to compensate for the lack of
internal gas pressure, and suffer from a decrease in resil-
ience and rebound which also adversely affects performance.
The objective of the appellants’ invention is to provide a
pressureless tennis ball that meets the specifications re-
quired by the United States Lawn Tennis Association while
providing the increased stiffness needed in a pressureless
ball, with little or no decrease in resilience and rebound.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007