Appeal No. 2000-0852 Page 10
Application No. 09/061,314
Since we have not sustained any of the examiner’s Section 103 rejections on their
face, we need not comment upon the information presented in the inventor’s declaration,
which is directed to the secondary considerations of long-felt need and unexpected results.
Remand to the Examiner
This application is remanded to the examiner for the purpose of considering Liao
taken in view of Griffin as a basis for rejecting the appellant’s claims, noting that Liao
discloses a device for batting practice in which the target ball is fixedly coupled to the
terminal end of the target support but lacks the curved bottom required by the claims, and
Griffin teaches providing a curved support base bottom in order to provide self-righting “on
a bad batting hit,” which is explained as being a hit wholly or partially upon the support,
rather than wholly upon the target ball.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wolfe
is sustained.
The rejection of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Wolfe is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007