Appeal No. 1999-1978 Page 5
Application No. 08/864,442
regulation baseball bat, the bat is weighted with a removable
weight, and that an object of his invention is to provide a
means for non-destructively weighting a regulation baseball
bat. Thus, it is our view that Hamilton does not teach or
suggest "permanently securing" the weighted ring 10 to the bat
9 in the manner recited in the claims under appeal. We have
also reviewed the references to Worst and Dirksing but find
nothing therein which makes up for the deficiency of Hamilton
discussed above.
Since all the limitations of the claims under appeal are
not taught or suggested by the applied prior art for the
reason stated above, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 3, 5 and 8 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007