Appeal No. 1999-1978 Page 4
Application No. 08/864,442
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require a weighted ring
"permanently secured" to/on the barrel of a bat. It is our
view that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest a
weighted ring "permanently secured" to/on the barrel of a bat.
In that regard, Hamilton teaches a weighted ring 10 removably
clamped in various ways to the barrel of a bat 9. In fact,
Hamilton teaches (column 1, lines 23-64) that the bat may be a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007