Appeal No. 2002-0962
Application No. 09/017,959
that was conceded by appellant’s counsel at oral hearing to be
correct. However, it is our view that a different outcome would
result if the claims were amended to set forth that the tips of the
projections define a curve which has a curvature substantially like
a curvature of a bowling ball independent of a force being exerted
by the bowler on the ball.5 In light of this and under the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(c), we recommend that the standing
anticipation rejection based on Stevens shall be overcome if claims
17 and 21 are amended as follows (with underlining indicating
additions and bracketing indicating deletions)6:
17. A bowling accessory, comprising . . .
a pad having one or more projections for
contacting a bowling ball, said pad associated with said
retaining mechanism, and said pad having an arcuate
surface, said projections having desired configuration
such that tips of said projections define a curve which
has a curvature substantially like a curvature of the
bowling ball, and when force is exerted by the bowler on
the ball[,] the projections flatten providing a larger
surface to grip the ball enabling the bowler to better
initiate rotation as the bowling ball is released.
21. A bowling finger grip, comprising . . .
5Support for this condition of the tips of the projections
is found at page 3, lines 17-19, of appellant’s specification.
6Appellant’s counsel at oral hearing was understood to be
amenable to such changes.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007