Ex Parte SCRUGGS et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-1037                                                        
          Application 08/963,131                                                      


          second or less.  Representative claims 1 and 28 read as follows:            
               1. A golf club head made at least in part of a bulk-                   
          solidifying amorphous metal that may be cooled from the melt at a           
          cooling rate of about 500"C per second or less, yet retain an               
          amorphous structure, the golf club head being fabricated by                 
          casting the bulk-solidifying amorphous metal to shape in a mold.            
               28. A golf club head having at least a portion thereof cast            
          to shape against a mold and made of a metal having a strength-to-           
          density ratio of at least about 1 x 106 inches, an elastic strain           
          limit of more than about 1.5 percent, and a density of from about           
          5.0 to about 7.0 grams per cubic centimeter.                                
                                   THE PRIOR ART                                      
               The references relied on by the examiner to support the                
          final rejection are:                                                        
          Peker et al. (Peker)             5,288,344        Feb. 22, 1994             
          Anderson et al. (Anderson)       5,417,419        May  23, 1995             
                                   THE REJECTION                                      
               Claims 1, 4 through 14 and 21 through 29 stand rejected                
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson in             
          view of Peker.                                                              
               Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply                
          briefs (Paper Nos. 34 and 36) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper           
          No. 35) for the respective positions of the appellants and the              
          examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.                            





                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007