Appeal No. 1998-3371
Application 08/614,383
The appellants have discovered that these goals can
be achieved by adding a plastomer to the rubber that is used
for the core in a conventional tennis ball. As manifested in
claim 1, the tennis ball comprises a hollow core and a cover,
with the core being formed “from a composition including
rubber and a plastomer defined as a copolymer of ethylene and
one or more
alkenes containing 4 to 10 carbon atoms.” The claim goes on
to require that the ball have a “rebound” and a “forward
deformation” of stated values as measured by the United States
Lawn Tennis Association.
This claim stands rejected as being unpatentable
over Wood in view of Hazelton. Wood discloses a conventional
pressurized tennis ball having a hollow rubber core. The
thrust of the Wood invention is to improve upon the cover.
Hazelton is directed to a “thermoelastic” composition of
ethylene-1-olefin copolymer and rubber. The characteristics
of the composition are described in the Abstract as “heat-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007