Appeal No. 2004-1195
Application No. 09/766,165
design a basketball having a rebound distance that is suitable
for the particular individuals playing the game.
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of claims 27-31
under § 103 over Adair. As noted above, appellants do not
dispute the examiner's finding that Adair teaches that the
rebound characteristics of a baseball off of a bat can be
evaluated by measuring the same two parameters which define
appellants' critical ratio, namely, the duration of the ball's
impact with the surface, and the half period of component
vibration. We agree with the examiner that simply because Adair
does not devise an arbitrary ratio of the two parameters, it does
not follow that the use of such known parameters in the manner
disclosed by appellants would have been nonobvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Clearly, using the inverse of
appellants' critical ratio would not qualify as a patentable
distinction over using the critical ratio.
We are not persuaded by appellants' argument that claims
27-31 are directed to determining the critical ratio of an
inflated sport ball, whereas Adair is directed to baseballs, not
inflated sport balls. Nor are we persuaded by the argued
distinction between appellants' study of the ball's impact with
the floor and Adair's study of the ball's impact with a bat.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007