Appeal No. 2006-0709
Application No. 10/780,805
present invention enables a ball player to swing a bat having
conventional and weight dimensions, yet the reduced diameter
barrel enhances the visual acuity of the batter when used
repeatedly to strike the ball” (Page 2 of principal brief, last
paragraph).
Appealed claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Owen in view of Muhlhausen.
Claims 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brundage in view of Muhlhausen.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of the appellant’s
arguments in the principal and reply briefs on appeal. However,
we are in complete agreement with the examiner that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art within the meaning of Section 103 in view of the
applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the answer,
and we add the following primarily for emphasis.1
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-6 over Owen in
view of Muhlhausen. Owen, like appellant, discloses a training
Since appellant has not advanced separate arguments for any1
particular claim on appeal, separately rejected claims 1-6 stand
or fall together, as do claims 7-10.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007