Appeal No. 2004-0350
Application No. 09/570,507
transported and set up as taught by Hailer (e.g., see lines 6-9
in column 2 and the paragraph bridging columns 2 and 3).
It is the Appellant’s position that an artisan would not have
possessed the level of skill necessary to combine the teachings
of Kraushaar and Hailer in the manner discussed above. We find
no persuasive merit in this position, however, since it is
contraindicated by the Hailer disclosure which is specifically
directed to an artisan with an ordinary level of skill and which
is specifically concerned with fabricating a game apparatus from
tubular materials. We are also unconvinced by the Appellant’s
argument that the combination proposed above is contrary to
Kraushaar and other prior art of record which illustrate that,
in games involving tossing devices, “targets were thought by those
in the art to be massive in order to remain stationary and survive
repeated impacts from a weighted projectile” (brief, page 16).
Again, the Hailer reference contraindicates this argument since
the tubular-fabricated apparatus thereof is used in conjunction
with thrown, hit or kicked balls such as baseballs, footballs and
soccer balls (e.g., see lines 5-13 in column 1).
With respect to appealed independent claim 1 specifically,
the Appellant further argues that the applied prior art contains
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007