Appeal 2006-1969
Application 10/712,942
103(a) as unpatentable over Nesbitt in view of Isaac (id.). Claims 10-28 stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type- double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1-42 of Sullivan (Answer, page 4).
Based on the totality of the record, including the records of related Appeal No.
2005-1119 (Application No. 10/074,665) and Appeal No. 2004-1184 (Application No.
10/074,849), we affirm all rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection for Obviousness-type Double Patenting
Appellants do not address the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of
claims 10 through 28 in the Brief other than to state that “Applicants will file a Terminal
Disclaimer once the other issues have been overcome” (Brief, page 4). Since appellants
do not contest this rejection, we summarily affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 10-28
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type-double patenting as unpatentable
over claims 1-42 of Sullivan.
B. The Rejections over Nesbitt alone
The examiner finds that Nesbitt discloses a golf ball comprising a core, an inner
cover layer, and an outer cover layer, where Nesbitt exemplifies inner cover layers made
from Surlyn 1605 (an ionomer) with a Shore D hardness of 62 and outer cover layers
made from Surlyn 1855 (an ionomer) with a Shore D hardness of 55 (Answer, page 3,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007