Appeal No. 2006-0709
Application No. 10/780,805
diameter of the barrel section of Owen in view of Muhlhausen to
obtain the bat of claims 1 or 4 because Owen is concerned with
strength development, not visual acuity” (page 4 of principal
brief, third paragraph). We agree with the examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
incorporate the principle underlying the bat of Muhlhausen into
the design of Owen in order to enhance visual acuity as well as
strength.
We also do not subscribe to appellant’s argument that “[i]f
the barrel section of the Owen were made narrower, there would be
no wood left in the barrel section because the chamber 13 must
accommodate the weights 15 in Owen.” Id. We are satisfied that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the wherewithal
to select appropriately sized weights to fit in the smaller
barrel section. Again, we emphasize that the barrel section of
Owen need only to be slightly reduced in diameter to meet the
requirements of claim 1.
Turning to the rejection of claims 7-10 over Brundage in
view of Muhlhausen, we agree with the examiner that it would have
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the barrel
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007