Appeal No. 2001-1661 Page 3
Application No. 09/144,654
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an apparatus for practicing a ball-propelling
sport using a ball-returning device in conjunction with an imaging device (title). A copy of
the claims under appeal is set forth 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:
Hogue 3,711,092 Jan. 16, 1973
Pearson 3,996,711 Dec. 14, 1976
Pfeilsticker 4,333,646 June 8, 1982
Scheie 4,334,681 June 15, 1982
Newland et al. (Newland) 4,657,250 Apr. 14, 1987
Light 5,603,617 Feb. 18, 1997
Claims 22 to 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Pfeilsticker in view of Pearson and Hogue.
Claims 25 to 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Light in view of Newland and Hogue.1
1In the answer (p. 4), the examiner inadvertently included claim 33 in this ground of rejection.
However, the final rejection (p. 4) makes clear that only clams 25 to 32 are rejected on this basis.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007