Appeal No. 2006-0709
Application No. 10/780,805
section of Brundage’s weighted bat to have a slightly smaller
diameter to enhance the visual acuity of the batter in training.
While Brundage is silent regarding the diameter of the barrel
section for the training bat, Muhlhausen, as discussed above,
evidences that it was known in the art to reduce the size of the
contact portion of the bat to enhance eye-to-hand coordination.
Appellant’s argument that Brundage does not address the goal of
enhancing visual acuity is not persuasive for the same reason set
forth above with respect to the Owen reference.
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner’s decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007