Appeal No. 2003-1451
Application No. 09/760,291
The Rejection of Claim 10 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The examiner has found that the patent to Stuff differs from
the claimed invention in that Stuff lacks arcuate-shaped grooves
sloped at an angle with respect to the lands. (Examiner’s Answer,
page 3, lines 11-13). The examiner has also found that it is known
in the art to provide arcuate shaped grooves on clubfaces as
evidenced by Viste and Sasse. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3, lines
13-24).
The examiner thus concludes that it would have been obvious
to modify the Stuff device by providing grooves having an arcuate
cross-section to modify the striking characteristics of the
clubface. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3, line 24 - page 4, line 2).
The examiner has also found that Rule 4-1(e)(i) of the USGA
rules of Golf sets forth that marking within an area where impact
is intended may include a series of straight grooves with
diverging sides and a symmetrical cross-section. (Examiner’s
Answer, page 4, lines 2-5)
The examiner thus concludes that it would have been obvious
to modify the Stuff device by providing a slope to the sidewalls
of the grooves, to conform to USGA standards. (Examiner’s Answer,
page 4, lines 6-9).
The appellant, on the other hand, asserts that the groove
shapes in Viste and Sasse are not applicable to the putter shown
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007