Appeal 2007-1694
Application 10/124,103
whose shape conforms to that of a casing so that no space exists
therebetween” (Spector, col. 4, ll. 38-41). Spector teaches that when the ball
is vigorously kicked or bounced, the shock is absorbed by the
compressible internal body of the ball, but the shape of the ball
is maintained by the elastomeric casing which permits
indentation of the ball in the region at which the force is
applied, but does not permit the ball to assume any shape than
its predetermined spherical configuration.
(Spector, col. 5, ll. 40-46.) Spector also teaches that the outer casing of the
ball includes a small closable port (e.g., vent) whereby water can be
introduced into or extruded from the internal body of the ball (Spector,
col. 3, ll. 35-44). Spector teaches that “[o]ne adds as much water as is
necessary to bring up the weight of the ball to the desired level, at which
point the port is closed to retain the water within the ball” (Spector, col. 5, ll.
31-34).
In sum, Spector teaches a device that comprises an object that is at
least as large as a conventional softball. Spector’s device has a resilient
outer wall defining a hollow interior. In addition, Spector’s device has a
vent that would be expected 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Spector. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, and
15 are grouped together (Supplemental Br. 7). Therefore, we limit our
discussion to representative claim 1. Claims 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, and 15 will
stand or fall together with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013