Appeal No. 2002-0962
Application No. 09/017,959
curvature substantially like a curvature of a bowling ball when
force is exerted by the bowler on the ball.
Admittedly, Stevens does not expressly disclose or describe
that the projections are configured such that tips define a curve
which has a curvature substantially like a curvature of a bowling
ball when force is exerted by a bowler (wearer) on the ball, as
recited in claim 17, or that the projections would flatten
providing a larger surface to grip a bowling ball enabling a bowler
(wearer) to better initiate rotation as the bowling ball is
released, as also recited in claim 17. However, “a prior art
reference may anticipate when the claim limitation or limitations
not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless inherent in
it.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51
USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The above-quoted statement
from page 3 of the final rejection (Paper No. 20) is, in effect, a
finding by the examiner that the projections of Stevens are
configured such that they would inherently define a curvature
substantially like the curvature of a bowling ball “when force is
exerted by the bowler [wearer] on the ball” as called for in claim
17, and such that they would inherently be capable of flattening in
the manner called for in claim 17. Given the structure and
intended use of Stevens, we consider this finding to be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007