Appeal No. 1999-1987 Page 8
Application No. 08/400,129
Based on our analysis and review of Alexander and claims
1 to 3, it is our opinion that the only difference is the
limitation in claim 1 that the batting practice apparatus
includes "an elongate, moderately flexible sleeve disposed in
concentric relation with said tether, adjacent said tether's
distal end."
In applying the above-noted test for obviousness with
regard to this difference, we reach the conclusion that it
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the
batting practice device of Alexander with a length of rubber
tubing or hose extending over the lower portion of Alexander's
line 14 and engaging at one end with the ball 12, 12' as
suggested by the teachings of Albert so as to eliminate whips
in the line 14 which would otherwise occur when the ball is
struck.
Additionally, it is well settled that a disclosure that
anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007