Appeal No. 1999-1987 Page 10
Application No. 08/400,129
comprising: a. a flexible tether (i.e., Albert's chain 23)
having proximal and distal ends; b. a substantially spherical,
mechanical energy-absorbing mass (i.e., Albert's ball 25)
affixed to said tether's distal end; and, c. an elongate,
moderately flexible sleeve (i.e., Albert's rubber tubing or
hose 30) disposed in concentric relation with said tether,
adjacent said tether's distal end. The limitation of claim 2
reads on Albert as follows: said tether has means for being
grasped at its proximal end (i.e., Albert's bumper 21). The
limitation of claim 3 reads on Albert as follows: said
mechanical energy-absorbing mass is a spherical, resilient
ball (i.e., Albert's baseball 25).
With respect to claim 1, the appellant argues (brief, pp.
9-13) that there is no teaching, suggestion, incentive or
motivation to combine the teachings of Alexander and Albert.
We do not agree.
While there must be some teaching, reason, suggestion, or
motivation to combine existing elements to produce the claimed
device, it is not necessary that the cited references or prior
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007