Appeal No. 1999-1987 Page 29
Application No. 08/400,129
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, and (2) modified Alexander's line 14 to include
both a short tether, a swivel arrangement and an adjusting
line as suggested and taught by McGuckin's tether 17 having a
short tether 38, a swivel arrangement 27 and an adjusting line
21 to provide the self evident advantage thereof. Moreover,
in applying the test for obviousness, we additionally conclude
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 McGuckin's device with a length of rubber tubing or
hose extending over the short tether portion 38 and engaging
at one end with the ball 40 as suggested by the teachings of
Albert so as to eliminate whips in the short tether portion 38
which would otherwise occur when the ball is struck.
The arguments set forth by the appellant in the brief
(pp. 36-38) are unpersuasive since the applied prior art is
suggestive of the claimed invention for the reasons set forth
above and in our previous discussions of claims 1, 8 and 10.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007