Appeal No. 2005-1335 Page 6
Application No. 10/128,266
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 11, 22, 30, 33, 38 and
43, and dependent claims 12 through 21, 23 through 29, 31, 32, 34
through 37, 39 through 42, 44 and 45, as being unpatentable over
Schaper in view of Schwaner.
Each of independent claims 11, 22, 30, 33, 38 and 43 recites
a game ball including at least one hexagonal panel in addition to
at least one bridged panel formed of two seamlessly-joined
hexagonal portions. As indicated above, the Schaper ball does
not have any bridged panels and the Schwaner ball does not have
any hexagonal panels. The only suggestion for selectively
combining these prior art balls so as to arrive at a ball having
at least one hexagonal panel and at least one bridged panel
formed of two seamlessly-joined hexagonal portions as recited in
independent claims 11, 22, 30, 33, 38 and 43 stems from hindsight
knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Hence, the examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter recited
in claims 11 through 45 would have been obvious within the
meaning of § 103(a) is unsound.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007