Appeal No. 1998-3371
Application 08/614,383
Wood ball that would be solved by such a modification to the
core, and there is no hint in Hazelton that the plastomer
described therein would increase the stiffness of a composi-
tion to which it was added, much less that it would improve
the core of tennis balls or the like. From our perspective,
the only suggestion for making the modification to Wood pro-
posed by the examiner is found in the hindsight accorded one
who first viewed the appellants’ disclosure. This, of course,
is not a proper basis for an obviousness rejection. See In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
The combined teachings of Wood and Hazelton thus
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 2-7, which depend therefrom.
The same conclusion, based upon the same rationale,
applies also to independent claim 8, which sets forth a method
of decreasing deformation and increasing rebound of a tennis
ball by
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007