Appeal No. 2003-1695 6
Application No. 09/771,072
hole may be made as large or as small as desired. See Office action dated December 03,
2001, page 3. Owen however, is directed to a golf training device. See column 1, lines
6-10. Owen states that an object of the invention is to define a golf hole, “having a rim
that is variable in diameter.” See column 2, lines 1-7. The variable diameter practice golf
hole of Owen has a support mechanism that is movable between a minimum and a
maximum diameter. See column 2, lines 20-28. Owen states that, “the actual minimum
diameter of hole 42 is approximately 2 inches. Likewise, the actual maximum diameter is
approximately 4½ inches. The minimum and maximum hole diameters can, of course, be
larger or smaller than the above-described values depending upon the application of the
training device.” See column 6, lines 38-47. Accordingly, the teaching of Owen is
likewise directed to a practice golf hole wherein the golf ball can pass through the golf hole.
There is in Owen no teaching or suggestion for reducing the size of the hole so as to
prevent the golf ball from passing through the golf hole. That conclusion is read into the
teachings of the reference by the examiner. When the examiner’s conclusion is considered
in light of the totality of the record before us, it constitutes a hindsight conclusion.
Accordingly, the rejection of the examiner is not sustainable.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 68 through 79, 104 through 109, 112 and 113 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Scanlan in view of Van Holt is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007