Appeal No. 2002-1924 Page 7
Application No. 09/102,342
Second, the appellants argue that Sullivan does not claim a Riehle compression
of above 47 for the subject golf balls. While this is true, the pertinence of this fact
escapes us since the rejection is based on Sullivan's golf ball having formulation 35, not
Sullivan's claimed subject matter.
Third, the appellants argue that for the anticipation rejection to be proper "any
and all possible formulations" according to Sullivan "must necessarily produce a ball
with Riehle compression within the presently claimed range." We are not aware of any
legal support for this proposition. In fact, the case law cited above supports the
proposition that for the anticipation rejection to be proper only one formulation taught
Sullivan must necessarily produce a ball with Riehle compression within the presently
claimed range.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sullivan is affirmed.
Claims 27 and 28
Claims 27 and 28 read as follows:
27. A golf ball, as set forth in claim 18, wherein the cover has a thickness
greater than 0.0675 inches.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007