Appeal No. 2002-1968
Application No. 09/574,922
In our opinion, if one of ordinary skill in the art were to
evaluate the teachings of Wheeler and Motooka, without hindsight
benefit of appellant's disclosure, such artisan would have, at
best, been led to provide the glove of Wheeler with a name plate
fitting (3) like that in Motooka (frame member 5 and name plate
10) mounted on the outside or back member of the glove (i.e.,
away from the ball receiving pocket of the glove so as not to
form an obstruction to play) as taught in Motooka. Simply
stated, we see nothing in Motooka or Wheeler that relates in any
way to appellant's particular method of providing an after-
market, single flexible target member of the particular type
required in claim 45 on appeal, separate from the glove, and then
affixing such target member to the pocket portion of the glove by
manually pressing the inwardly facing pressure sensitive adhesive
layer of the target member against the pocket portion of the
glove.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
which would have been fairly derived from Wheeler and Motooka
would not have made the subject matter as a whole of claim 45 on
appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007