Appeal No. 2004-1195
Application No. 09/766,165
containing the inflation mechanism. Significantly, appellants do
not define the claim language "substantially the same" so as to
patentably distinguish sports balls within the scope of the
appealed claims from balls fairly taught by Weiss. Also,
appellants have proffered no objective evidence which provides a
comparison of rebound characteristics for balls fairly taught by
Weiss and balls within the scope of the appealed claims. See
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA
1977). In addition, the breadth of claim 1, and various other
appealed claims, is underscored by the fact that the claims do
not define a sport ball as comprising specifications for official
play. We also find that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been sufficiently motivated to design a sport ball having a
self-contained inflation mechanism that has "substantially the
same" characteristics as balls not containing the inflation
mechanism.
Concerning the minimum critical ratio recited in separately
argued claim 21, appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Adair evidences that it was known in the art
to evaluate the rebound characteristics of a ball by determining
the half period of component vibration and duration of the ball's
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007