Appeal No. 1998-3426
Application 08/762,204
determination that the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
As noted by appellants, the Ross patent (e.g., Figs. 5 and 6) is directed to a
tennis racket having a ball retrieval means affixed to a portion of the racket strings.
The ball retrieval means includes first and second interconnectable blocks (31, 32)
that are apparently made of plastic material. The blocks are affixed to the strings (35)
of the racket by nut and bolt means passing through the blocks and through the
interstices (34) between the tensioned strings. The outer surface of each of the
blocks is provided with a curvilinear portion (37) that has a radius which corresponds
to the radius of a tennis ball. A patch (38) of hooked material is cemented in each of
the curvilinear portions and serves to engage with the felted cover normally present
on conventional tennis balls so that a ball may be retrieved without the necessity of
stooping for such retrieval.
The examiner, on page 4 of the answer, has made the determination that the
blocks (31, 32) of Ross are made of plastic, which (according to the examiner) is “[a]
group of material to which viscoelastic materials are found.” The examiner has
further made the determination that the blocks of Figures 5 and 6 in Ross are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007