Appeal No. 2002-0101
Application No. 09/384,546
The following are our findings of fact with respect to the
scope and content of the prior art and the differences between
the prior art and the claimed subject matter. Schonberg
discloses a target of flat, thin, flexible material with a sports
target imprinted on at least one side. Schonberg can be
suspended or supported in a vertical or upright position. Due to
the thin, flexible nature of Schonberg's target, Schonberg would
inherently transmit energy back to rebound a projectile if
Schonberg were mounted on a rigid wall. As per our construction
of claim 1, however, the subject matter target is merely adapted
to be so mounted, and the claim does not actually require such a
mounting, appellant's arguments notwithstanding. Schonberg does
not disclose hook-and-loop fastening material.
Lapsker discloses a target 10 constructed of flat, thin
fabric of hook-and-loop material. The projectiles 16, 20 of
Lapsker have hook-and-loop fastener 14, 22 attached thereto, and
they adhere to the fabric of Lapsker when they hit the fabric.
Lapsker's fabric is attached to a supporting framework by patches
38 of hook-and-loop material on the frame. We further note that
the patches 38 of Lapsker are backed with an adhesive. The
differences between Lapsker and the claimed subject matter are
that Lapsker does not show strips of hook-and-loop fastener, and
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007