Appeal 2006-1969
Application 10/712,942
Answer, page 6). Furthermore, the examiner has presented technical reasoning that
reasonably supports a determination that the COR of the final ball of Nesbitt falls within the
claimed COR value of at least 0.770 (Answer, page 7). Appellants have not contested or
disputed the examiner’s reasoning.4 Contrary to appellants’ arguments, we determine that
the examiner has provided sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable belief that the
properties of the Nesbitt golf ball would have inherently been the same as the claimed golf
ball properties. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657-58 (Fed. Cir.
1990); and In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In an attempt to rebut the examiner’s evidence, appellants argue that their
specification includes example golf balls made using the materials disclosed in Nesbitt,
and these golf balls do not meet the COR limitations of the claims (Brief, page 6,
specifically citing Examples 3 and 4 and Tables 16-18, especially finished ball 5 in Table
4We also note the teachings of Nesbitt that the maximum COR should be
attained for the intermediate ball (col. 1, ll. 57-60) and the COR of the final golf ball
closely approaches or attains “that which provides the maximum initial velocity
permitted” by the USGA (paragraph bridging cols. 1-2).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007