Appeal No. 2003-1341
Application No. 09/447,071
actually teaches away from the claimed method in requiring table
tennis players to not play by the appellants’ method. (Appeal
Brief, page 4, line 14 - page 5, line 3).
The appellants also urge that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not look to the Rules of Tennis Play for use in table
tennis as they are separate sports.
Finally, it is urged, nothing in the references teaches the
use of a wider width table. (Id., page 5, lines 4-17).
First, we note that we agree with the examiner that the
Rules of Table Tennis play permit players to play as instantly
claimed, i.e. to not alternate in making returns (See Rule 34,
Note). Additionally, Rule 32 contemplates receiving out of
order. Consequently, we agree that the claimed order of play
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Second, we disagree that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not look to the Rules of Tennis Play for guidance. The
Rules of Table Tennis Play themselves refer to the Rules of
Tennis Play as governing (see page 3 of Rules of Play, line
last). The rules of tennis likewise allow for partners to return
the balls in non-alternating ways (see Rule 40, USTA Comment,
lines 1-2).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007