Appeal No. 1999-1987 Page 12
Application No. 08/400,129
provide the necessary teaching, reason, suggestion, and
motivation to have combine their existing elements to produce
the claimed invention.
Further with respect to claim 1, the appellant argues
(brief, pp. 13-14) that Albert's rubber tubing or hose 30 is
not a "moderately flexible" sleeve as recited in claim 1. We
do not agree.
In view of the purpose of Albert's rubber tubing or hose
30 (i.e., to provide protection for the bat and to eliminate
whips in the chain which would otherwise occur when the ball
is struck), we reach the conclusion that the limitation
"moderately flexible" is readable on Albert's rubber tubing or
hose 30. In that regard, the phrase "moderately flexible"
must be given its broadest reasonable meaning. Since the 4
4The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) applies to the
verbiage of the claims before it the broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the appellant's specification. In re Morris, 127
(continued...)
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007