Appeal 2007-1694
Application 10/124,103
The object of claim 1 is for striking with a golf club. Air will flow out
of the hollow interior of the object when it is struck by a golf club and re-
enter the hollow interior of the object after being struck by a golf club.
There is, however, no requirement in claim 1 to strike the object with a golf
club. The intended use of the object “for striking with a golf club” (claim 1)
and the resulting effect on air flow, out of or into the hollow interior of the
object, do not limit the scope of the claimed device. In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (product claim’s
intended use recitations not given patentable weight); see also Boehringer
Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345, 65
USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“An intended use or purpose usually
will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no
more than define a context in which the invention operates.”).
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and requires that the diameter of the
vent, on the resilient outer wall of the object, is between approximately 4
mm and approximately 10 mm.
Claim 16 ultimately depends from claim 1 and requires the device to
comprise a spherical object and a target assembly against which the
spherical object is propelled after being struck from a striking position a
sufficient distance from the target assembly.
There is no requirement in claim 16 to actually strike the object with a
golf club. Instead, claim 16 states that when the spherical object is struck by
a golf club swung by a golfer it travels in a direction imposed by the golfer’s
swing whereby the golfer can practice to control the travel of the practice
ball and to develop golf swing strength. The claim does not exclude
propelling the spherical object toward the target assembly by another means,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013