Appeal No. 2000-0852 Page 2
Application No. 09/061,314
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a swing practicing device for improving a
baseball swing. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Griffin 4,176,838 Dec. 4, 1979
Richards 4,268,030 May 19, 1981
Rubin 4,486,016 Dec. 4, 1984
Wolfe 4,770,412 Sep. 13, 1988
Liao 5,035,424 Jul. 30, 1991
Claims 1-5 and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Wolfe.
Claims 1, 9, 11-13, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Griffin in view of Liao.
Claims 6, 7, 9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Griffin in view of Rubin.
Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Richards.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007