Appeal No. 2005-1335 Page 4
Application No. 10/128,266
by a conventional ball composed of twenty separately formed
hexagonal portions and twelve separately formed pentagonal
portions while reducing the number of seams on the ball and the
manufacturing inefficiencies and structural drawbacks associated
therewith (see, for example, column 1, line 23, through column 2,
line 9). To this end, Schwaner provides a ball wherein the
twenty hexagonal portions (or three-arm stars) are embodied in
one, two, five or ten integrally (i.e., seamlessly) formed pieces
(see Figures 2 and 3, Figures 8 and 9, Figures 4 and 5, and
Figures 6 and 7, respectively).
In proposing to combine Schaper and Schwaner to reject the
appealed claims, the examiner submits that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to eliminate the
seam between the adjacent hexagonal portions [in the Schaper
ball] for the reasons advanced by Schwaner” (Office action mailed
November 4, 2003, page 3).
Generally speaking, the combined teachings of Schaper and
Schwaner would have provided the artisan with ample motivation or
suggestion to utilize seamlessly joined hexagonal portions of the
sort disclosed by Schwaner in place of the separately formed
hexagonal portions disclosed by Schaper in order to take
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007