Appeal No. 2002-1904
Application No. 09/156,540
Claims 1, 2, 9, 16, 23, 28, 31-34
In response to the section 103 rejection over Nesbit, Schmoll, and Butler,
appellants contend (Brief at 6-7) that the references fail to teach or suggest recording
and analyzing the interaction between club and ball during a golfer’s swing, including
actual ball performance, and determining from the analysis a club that will provide
optimal ball performance.
Schmoll describes method and apparatus for analyzing recorded images of a
golf swing. The reference teaches that two key parameters in fitting a club to a golfer
are the club length and head-to-shaft angle. Col. 1, ll. 29-43. Schmoll further notes
that a typical model of golf club had about five possible lengths and about five possible
head-to-shaft angles. Id. at ll. 54-64.
Schmoll’s invention includes using cameras for recording an image of a person
swinging a club at least at the moment of impact with a golf club, and providing means
capable of measuring, from the recorded image, the horizontal projection of a club shaft
on a reference plane and the angle of elevation between the reference plane and shaft
of the club. Col. 2, ll. 53-68.
In a preferred embodiment, a digital video camera 18 (Fig. 1) is capable of
rapidly acquiring a series of images of the golfer 10 as the golfer swings club 12 and
strikes golf ball 14. Col. 3. ll. 25-39. A second camera 22 is located directly above the
golfer and provides an overhead view, primarily for evaluation of swing dynamics and
for selecting an image from first camera 18 for use in club fitting. Id. at ll. 51-59. The
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007