Appeal No. 2003-138709
Application /479,576
[a]s shown in FIG. 2, wheels 14, 16 are positioned so
that the space between the peripheries thereof is
slightly less than the diameter of ball 102. The ball
engaging portions 104 of wheels 14, 16 are constructed
from a resilient material having a low coefficient of
friction, preferably are pneumatic tires as shown in
FIG. 2, to minimize scuffing of the ball [column 4,
lines 14 through 20].
Green, noting “[t]he widespread interest in ball sports,
particularly baseball and tennis” (column 1, lines 12 and 13),
discloses a portable, lightweight ball throwing apparatus 10
which includes a pair of counter-rotating wheels 48 equipped with
cylindrical elastomeric tires 49, a pair of motors 35 for driving
the wheels and an on-board 12-volt battery for powering the
motors.
In applying Halstead alone to reject claims 1 through 3 and
5 and Greene in view of Halstead to reject claims 1 through 5,
the examiner concedes that neither reference discloses the
particular wheel dimensions set forth in independent claim 1.
Indeed, neither Halstead nor Green provides any relevant
information as to wheel dimensions. The examiner nonetheless
concludes that the subject matter recited in claim 1 would have
been obvious within the meaning of § 103(a) because
one of ordinary skill would know that the wheels should
be an appropriate size based on the projectile to be
launched. And one would also know that it is desirable
for these [baseball or ball] throwing machines to be
small and lightweight so they can be easily
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007