Appeal 2007-1694
Application 10/124,103
Appellant asserts that Conley does not teach an object that is “near the
approximate size of a conventional soccer ball with a vent opening
approximately 4 millimeters to 10 millimeters in diameter” (Br. 8). We are
not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Claim 2 places no restriction on the size of the object. Therefore, the
size of the object is defined by claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Claim
1 requires an object that is “at least as large as a conventional softball”
(claim 1, emphasis added). Conley’s ball is at least as large as a
conventional softball.
As to the diameter of the vent, we find Appellant’s argument
insufficient to rebut the Examiner’s finding that “absent a showing of
unexpected results the claimed 4mm to 10mm size would have been obvious
to the ordinarily skilled artisan depending on the ease with which one
wished to allow air to vent from the ball” (Answer 3).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner set forth a prima
facie case that claim 2 is unpatentable over Conley, which Appellant has not
rebutted. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conley. Claims 5 and 9 fall together
with claim 2.
SPECTOR
Spector teaches a spherical ball “having a diameter corresponding to
that of a regulation basketball, a soccerball or a baseball” (Spector, col. 4,
ll. 34-36). Spector’s ball “is constituted by an outer casing . . . having a
spherical shape within which is confined a compressible internal body . . .
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013