Appeal No. 2002-1031
Application 09/129,883
Opinion
Like the examiner (answer, paragraph spanning pages 12-13),
we consider that a golf ball that satisfies any one of the
combinations (1) to (5) for product of hardnesses and VR set
forth in independent claims 4 and 16 would meet the product of
hardnesses and VR relationship requirements of these claims.
Notwithstanding this circumstance, the standing rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) cannot be sustained. This is so because, even
if we accept the examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions of
obviousness as restated above, the claimed subject matter of
claims 4 and 16 would not necessarily result.
Concerning independent claim 4, we understand the examiner’s
rejection as concluding that it would have been obvious to modify
the golf ball of Yamagishi ‘413 such that the product of
hardnesses is somewhere within the range of 1500-3000, and such
that the ball has dimples arranged in the Type II dimple pattern
of Yamagishi ‘563 (resulting in VR = 0.996). These modification,
however, may or may not result in one of the combinations (1) to
(5) for product of hardnesses and VR set forth in claim 4. More
particularly, the product of hardnesses range of 1500-3000 set
forth in the rejection covers combinations (1), (2) and (3) of
claim 4. Considering the examiner’s position in more detail, if
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007