Appeal No. 2002-1954
Application No. 09/458,926
contact with the core or the first fibers to the sole fibers
wound around the core barrel portion and the second fibers to the
sole fibers wound around core handle portion.2
On the other hand, the appellants’ related contention (see
pages 3 through 6 in the brief) that Bohannan’s baseball bat does
not meet the limitation in claim 1 requiring the second fibers to
be wound at an angle of about 35° to 55° relative to a plane
normal to the longitudinal axis is persuasive. The most
pertinent of Bohannan’s fibers in this regard are those in the
generally helically extending rovings 28 which form an angle of
near 0° to near 90°, and usually between about 20° and 70°, with
respect to a plane normal to the longitudinal axis. While both
of these ranges fully encompass the significantly narrower 35° to
55° range set forth in the claim, they do not describe it with
the specificity necessary to establish anticipation. At most,
Bohannan presents a rebuttable prima facie case of obviousness
here. See, e.g., In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 182 USPQ 549
(CCPA 1974) which notes, with implicit approval, “several cases
wherein the prior art taught a broad range and the inventor was
held entitled to claims limited to a narrow range within the
2 Similar arguments advanced by the appellants with respect
to independent claims 12, 23 and 29 (see pages 6 through 8 in the
brief) are likewise unconvincing.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007