Appeal No. 2004-0086 3
Application No. 09/730,868
As an initial matter, it is the appellant’s position that, “[a]ll claims stand or fall
together.” See Brief, page 3. Accordingly, we limit our consideration to independent
claim 1. See 37 CFR1.192(c)(7)(2003).
The Rejection under Section 103
The appellant has correctly stated that the sole issue before us for consideration is
whether the combination of Oka and Cadorniga provide the requisite motivation to
combine a circular dimple as taught by Oka with a compound dimple as taught by
Cadorniga. We answer that question in the affirmative and accordingly sustain the rejection
by the examiner.
Oka is directed to a golf ball having improved dimple configurations so that the golf
ball has favorable flight performance. See column 1, lines 7-10. By favorable
performance, Oka states that an object of the invention is to provide, “a golf ball capable
of flying a long distance.” See column 1, lines 48-49. We find that Oka’s contribution to
the art is obtained by, “arranging on the surface of the golf ball dimples consisting of
different configurations so as to increase the turbulence of air flow in the periphery of the
golf ball.” See column 1, lines 50-53. We further find in this respect that the dimples are
arranged on the surface of a golf ball for the purpose of increasing turbulence in the air
flow at the periphery of a golf ball. See column 2, lines 25-28. Indeed, the more a
dimple is adjacent to dimples of different surface configurations the greater the dimple
effect. See column 2, lines 28-30.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007