Appeal No. 2002-1904
Application No. 09/156,540
the examiner points to specific portions of the Gobush reference in the Answer at page
12, including the data obtained as shown in the tables in Figure 7. The examiner finds
that the teachings would have suggested the means or step of confirming the strike
face (or putter loft) that will provide improved golf ball performance.
Claim 21 requires confirming the “strike face angle of the club head.” However,
the claim further requires that the confirming step includes analyzing, from side view
video images of the golf ball, the performance of a golf ball following impact with the
golf club. The relevant portion of the statement of the rejection (Answer at 6-7) relies
on Gobush for teaching confirmation of strike face angle, but relies on Butler for
capturing images of a ball after impact by a golf club head. We do not find in the
rejection, however, any rationale for a combination that would result in all the
requirements of instant claim 21. Claims 6 and 26 recite subject matter similar to claim
21.
Instant claim 15 requires means for confirming the loft of a putter, with the
confirming means including means for determining, from side view video images of the
golfer’s putting grip, the amount the golfer’s wrists are moving during a putting stroke.
We do not find where disclosure or suggestion for all the requirements of claim 15 has
been set out in the rejection.
Since we agree in substance that a case for prima facie obviousness has not
been established for claims 6, 15, 21, and 26, we do not sustain the rejection of those
claims.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007