Appeal No. 2003-1695 5
Application No. 09/771,072
The Rejection under Section 103(a) over Van Holt Jr. and Owen
There is no dispute that Van Holt discloses a structure within the scope of the
claimed subject matter other than the size of the diameter of the hole. In this respect Van
Holt is directed to a device when placed within a golf hole decreases its target diameter.
See column 1, lines 22-26. As Van Holt states, ”[t]he central aperture or opening
measures two and one half inches across, thus being of sufficient size to allow a golf ball to
pass therethrough.” See column 3, lines 50-52. See also the Abstract. We note that Van
Holt further discloses that when a device 10 is in place, “the diameter of the hole is
reduced from the regulation 4¼ inches to 2½ inches. It should be noted that the amount
that the diameter is reduced, is not limited to this amount but could be less or more as
desired.” See column 4, line 65 to column 5, line 1. With respect to the size of a golf
ball, the appellant has stated, that, “[a] standard golf ball has a diameter that is less than
two inches,” Brief, page 20, which statement has been concurred with, in the Answer,
page 6. Having determined the size of a golf ball, it is clear that there is no suggestion in
Van Holt, that the golf hole is reduced to a size sufficient that the golf ball is prevented
from passing through the golf hole. Stated otherwise there is no suggestion that the
training device disclosed by Van Holt is reduced to such an extent that the golf ball does
not pass through the reduced diameter golf hole.
In this context, Owen is relied upon by the examiner for teaching that a practice
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007