Appeal No. 2002-1968
Application No. 09/574,922
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary
regarding the above-noted rejection and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
12, mailed April 24, 2002) for the reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed April 5,
2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed May 1, 2002) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claim 45,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination which
follows.
In rejecting claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis
of the collective teachings of Wheeler and Motooka, it is the
examiner's position (answer, pages 3-4) that Wheeler discloses a
targeting device for aiding a first player in throwing an
ordinary baseball at a non-adhesive baseball receiving pocket
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007