Appeal 2006-2155
Application 10/747,179
invention. The relevant embodiment is the one shown in figure 13C.
The Appellant points out (Br. 17-18) that in the description of figure 13C,
McKee states that the tee merely supports the ball so a child can kick the ball
directly (col. 11, ll. 4-7). The Appellant argues that “[o]nce the football leaves the
tee 220, it does not strike any device or object that could cause the football to be
deflected into a substantially predictable trajectory” (Br. 17). As shown in
McKee’s figure 13C, once the football is kicked, at least its lower tip strikes first
surface 226. The football’s trajectory would be substantially predictable, i.e., in
substantially the direction in which the football is kicked. The Appellant’s
Specification does not limit the term “substantially predictable trajectory” to any
further degree of trajectory predictability, such as predictability of a trajectory
between goal post uprights.
The Appellant argues that the claim requirement that the football strikes a
body portion after the football is kicked excludes striking that is simultaneous with
the kicking action (Br. 18-19). The claims are not limited to striking after the
completed kicking action. All the claims require is that the football strikes a body
portion after the football is kicked, i.e., after a foot has struck the football.
McKee’s figure 13C indicates that when the football first begins to travel after it
has been struck, it necessarily strikes first surface 226.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013