Appeal 2007-1694
Application 10/124,103
such as kicking the spherical object. Accordingly, we find that the intended
use of the object does not limit the scope of the claimed device.
CONLEY
Conley teaches a ball having a diameter of one to approximately three
feet (Conley, col. 3, ll. 35-38). Conley’s ball “is preferably made from a
smooth, waterproof and tear-resistant material such as vinyl coated nylon
panels . . . stitched together to form a sphere” (Conley, col. 2, ll. 29-31).
“Although vinyl coated nylon is the preferred material for the shell . . . any
durable water resistant material would be appropriate” (Conley, col. 2, ll. 35-
37). Conley’s resilient outer wall defines a hollow interior that contains
filler material (Conley, col. 2, ll. 13-14). Appellant’s claim 1 does not
exclude the addition of filler or other material to the hollow interior of the
object. Conley’s ball includes at least one air vent that works in conjunction
with an aperture and allows air into and out of the ball (Conley, col. 3, ll. 8-
13). Conley teaches that it is important to allow air to enter and exit the ball
through the vent and aperture to prevent the ball from splitting when
pressure is applied to the ball (Conley, col. 3, ll. 19-23).
In sum, Conley teaches a device that comprises an object that is at
least as large as a conventional softball. Conley’s device has a resilient
outer wall defining a hollow interior. In addition, Conley’s device has a vent
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.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013