Appeal 2007-1694
Application 10/124,103
The Examiner presents the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Conley.
2. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Spector.
3. Claims 2, 5, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Conley.
4. Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spector.
5. Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Spector and Coughlan.
6. Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Mason and Coughlan.
We affirm.
DISCUSSION
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Claim 1 is drawn to a device. Claims 2-18 depend, directly or
indirectly, from claim 1. The device of claim 1 comprises an object that (1)
is at least as large as a conventional softball and (2) has a resilient outer
wall defining a hollow interior. The outer wall material “may be of leather,
rubber, vinyl or other synthetic material” (Specification ¶ 35). Claim 1
requires the resilient outer wall to have a vent opening there through to allow
restricted air flow out of the hollow interior upon inward flexing of the
resilient outer wall and to allow air to re-enter the hollow interior when the
resilient outer wall reflexes to its original shape.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013