Appeal No. 2000-0852 Page 5
Application No. 09/061,314
functional limitations of the claim. See In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 269, 194 USPQ 305, 307
(CCPA 1977). It is our view that there is no basis from which to conclude that the head in
the Wolfe device is not capable of accepting swing impacts from a baseball bat, which is
all that is required. The appellant also opines that because the Wolfe device is roughly the
same height as the person punching it, the head is too high to be used for baseball swing
training. However, the height of the Wolfe device is not specified in the patent, and so it is
speculation to conclude that it is too high to be struck by a swinging bat. Moreover, what
might be “high” for one person swinging a bat would not be so for a taller person. The final
argument focuses on the fact that the Wolfe device has arms disposed in front of the head,
which would impede the path of a baseball bat in attempting to impact the head. This
conclusion is not supported by the Wolfe disclosure, for it is clear from Figures 1, 2 , 5 and
6 that the arms are not so positioned as to preclude direct striking of the head. In fact, it
appears that a batter would have a clear route to the front, back, and sides of the head
except, perhaps, for a portion of the right side of the head if the swing is low and from the
batter’s left. Finally, we point out that the claim requires only that there be a “target,” which
is broad enough to encompass the arms as well as the head.
We therefore agree with the examiner that all of the subject matter required by claim
1 is disclosed in Wolfe, and we will sustain the Section 102 rejection against this claim.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007