Appeal No. 2004-1282
Application No. 10/037,668
can be and has been positioned directly or indirectly
on a member for actuating a signal between the
transmitter and receiver [paragraph bridging pages 11
and 12 of Answer].
Appellants also contend that none of Rappaport, Brown and
O'Brien discloses or suggests the combination of the claimed
features since
Rappaport and Brown do not disclose or suggest the
disposition of a switch and a transmitter on a batter's
hand and O'Brien does not disclose or suggest an
apparatus responsive to signals from a transmitter for
propelling an element (e.g. a ball) to a batter for the
striking of the element by a member (a bat) held by the
batter.
(Page 14 of Brief, first full paragraph). However, appellants'
argument is based upon an improper individual attack on the
references rather than the requisite collective teachings that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have gleaned from the
combined references as a whole. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426,
208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981).
As a final point, with respect to the § 103 rejections,
appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007