Appeal No. 2002-0962
Application No. 09/017,959
exerted by the bowler on the ball” (emphasis added) and that the
projections “flatten providing a larger surface to grip the ball
enabling the bowler to better initiate rotation as the bowling ball
is released,” the examiner states on page 3 of the final rejection
(Paper No. 20):
While it can be argued that one is not certain of the
material of the projections in Stevens, it is clear that
they are not rigid since they are intended to be used on
brushing teeth which would require some degree of
softness. It follows that placing force on the
projections of any type of brush by an object (such as a
bowling ball) would force them to flatten in compressed
and/or bent over fashion.
Appellant does not specifically disagree with the examiner’s
position that the projections of Stevens “are not rigid” and are
required to have “some degree of softness” based on their intended
use for brushing teeth. Appellant also does not specifically
disagree with the examiner’s position that placing force on the
projections of a brush “by an object (such as a bowling ball) would
force them to flatten in compressed and/or bent over fashion.”
Rather, appellant is understood to argue on page 4 of the main
brief and page 1 of the reply brief that Stevens does not
illustrate, disclose or suggest that the projections of Stevens are
configured such that their tips would define a curve having a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007