Appeal No. 1999-1987 Page 16
Application No. 08/400,129
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 17-19) that the
limitations of claim 8 are not suggested or taught by Albert's
rubber tubing or hose 30. We do not agree. In that regard,
we find that Albert's rubber tubing or hose 30 is inherently a
structure that is (1) sufficiently durable not to be damaged
by a bat's impact, (2) sufficiently flexible to yield when so
hit and, (3) shape-retaining to resist wrapping around a bat
and to return immediately to a substantially linear
configuration after such an impact. Thus, we conclude that
the limitations of claim 8 are readable on Albert's rubber
tubing or hose 30.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claims 4 to 6
We sustain the rejection of claims 4 to 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007