Ex Parte SUMITOMO et al - Page 4




              Appeal No. 2002-1071                                                                  Page 4                
              Application No. 09/369,312                                                                                  


              See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re                         
              Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).                                                


                     Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as follows:                                     
                            A golf club shaft comprising a laminate of a plurality of fiber reinforced                    
                     resinous layers having one pair of angle layers consisting of a first angle layer                    
                     and a second angle layer, or having a plurality of pairs of angle layers consisting                  
                     of said first and second angle layers, such that a fiber of said first angle layer                   
                     and that of said second angle layer incline in opposite directions at an angle 20/-                  
                     35/ with respect to an axis of said golf club shaft, wherein:                                        
                            said first angle layer and said second angle layer are wound by 1.5 turns                     
                     in a cross-sectional face of said golf club shaft and said 1.5 turns of said first and               
                     second angle layers continue along an axis of said shaft;                                            
                            a winding start point of said first and that of said second angle layers are                  
                     dislocated at 180/ in a circumferential direction of said golf club shaft; and                       
                            in a cross-sectional face of said golf club shaft, a part consisting of two                   
                     first angle layers and one second angle layer layered one upon another and a                         
                     part consisting of one first angle layer and two second angle layers layered one                     
                     upon another are formed to differentiate constructions consisting of said first and                  
                     second angle layers of both of said parts.                                                           


                     The appellants argue (brief, p. 6) that the applied prior art does not teach or                      
              suggest a golf shaft in which a first angle layer and a second angle layer are wound by                     
              1.5 turns in a cross-sectional face of the golf club shaft and the 1.5 turns of the first                   
              and second angle layers continue along an axis of the shaft as recited in claim 1.  We                      
              agree.  The examiner's apparent position (final rejection, pp. 3 & 6; answer, p. 3) that                    
              these limitations of claim 1 are met by Kawamatsu is without merit.  Kawamatsu clearly                      
              discloses in Figure 4 that the first body sheet 6a and the second body sheet 6b (i.e., the                  







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007