Appeal 2006-2155
Application 10/747,179
structure associated with the tee that would deflect the football (Request 6).
The Appellant argues that the Board’s statement that “[a]s shown in figure
13C, when a football placed in the indentation [230] is kicked, at least the
lower tip of the football necessarily will strike the first surface [226]”
(Decision 4) “is speculative at best and surely does not occur” (Request 6).
The depth of the indentation (230) in McKee’s figure 13C, which
appears to be comparable to those in the Appellant’s figures 6-8, indicates
that surface 226 necessarily is capable of being struck by a football kicked
from the tee, especially if the football is kicked straight ahead or downward.
The Appellant’s claims are not limited to the football being kicked straight
up such that it somehow would not hit surface 226. The Appellant argues
that US 5,501,454 to Frantz discloses a tee that surrounds the tip of a
football without impeding a clean kick therefrom (Request 6-7). The entire
sentence in the portion of Frantz (Frantz, col. 6, ll. 39-41) relied upon by the
Appellant states that “[t]he construction and configuration of kicking tee 20
is especially suited to provide the most accurate kick with the longest
trajectory simulating game conditions by virtue of the fact that the kicker’s
instep or toe contacts only the underside wall of the football and does not
engage any portion of kicking tee 20, be aligned so that the kicker can point
tee 20 to the intended direction thus maximizing accuracy of the kicks”
(Frantz, col. 6, ll. 39-46). That portion of Frantz discloses that the kicker’s
foot does not hit the tee, but is silent as to whether the football, after being
kicked, strikes any portion of the tee.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013