Appeal No. 2004-1282
Application No. 10/037,668
switch and transmitter of the Rappaport references are located on
the bat that is held by the individual. Consequently, we agree
with appellant that the references do not describe within the
meaning of § 102 the claim requirement that the switch and
transmitter be disposed on the hand of the individual. We do not
subscribe to the examiner's reasoning that "[i]nasmuch structure
provided by appellant [sic, appellants] in the claim, when the
user holds the bat the switch and transmitter are 'disposed' on
one hand of the individual and when the finger engages the
switch, the switch is 'disposed' on the finger of the individual"
(page 4 of Answer, third full sentence). Rather, it is our view
that, when the claim language is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim
requires that the switch and transmitter are disposed on or
attached to the individual in some manner.
The examiner's rejections under § 103 are, however, another
matter. We fully concur with the examiner that O'Brien evidences
the obviousness of modifying the system of Rappaport such that
the activating switch and transmitter are disposed on or attached
to the hand of the individual. Although O'Brien is directed to a
powered painting system and not a batting system, we find that
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007