Appeal No. 2006-0709
Application No. 10/780,805
unexpected result. Moreover, we concur with the examiner that
Muhlhausen evidences that it was known in the art to make the
portion of the bat which contacts the ball smaller in order to
enhance eye-to-hand coordination. Accordingly, although the
contacting portion of Muhlhausen’s bat is not cylindrical, we
agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to apply the principle disclosed by
Muhlhausen in designing the barrel section of a conventional bat
in order to improve the visual acuity of the batter.
Appellant contends that “Muhlhausen does not teach or
otherwise suggest that the length and weight of the overall
training bat 10 is substantially equivalent to the length and
weight of a conventional bat” (page 4 of principal brief, second
paragraph). However, the examiner does not cite Muhlhausen for
such a teaching of a conventional bat. It is Owen that teaches a
bat of conventional size, and the rationale of the rejection is
that it would have been obvious to modify the conventional-sized
bat of Owen in accordance with the teaching of Muhlhausen
regarding the size of the contact portion of the bat.
We are also not persuaded by appellant’s argument that “one
of ordinary skill in the art would not consider modifying the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007