Appeal 2006-1969
Application 10/712,942
17). However, as correctly noted by the examiner (Answer, pages 6-7), the finished ball 5
in Table 17 cannot be considered a golf ball within the scope of the Nesbitt disclosure
since the intermediate ball COR of the tested ball of 0.793 does not meet the requirement
of Nesbitt of a COR of 0.800 or more for such an intermediate ball.
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those reasons set forth in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a reasonable belief that the products of claim
15 on appeal are the same or at least obvious over the disclosure of Nesbitt, which belief
has not been adequately rebutted by appellants’ arguments and evidence. Therefore we
affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 10-12, 14-18, 21-22, 25 and 26 under section
102(b) or section 103(a) over Nesbitt.
C. The Rejection over Nesbitt in view of Isaac
The examiner applies Nesbitt as discussed above and in the Answer, finding that
Nesbitt fails to disclose that the outer cover layer may be made of polyurethane (Answer,
page 3). Therefore the examiner applies Isaac for its teaching of polyurethane as a cover
material for golf balls (id.). From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to substitute the polyurethane cover of Isaac
for the outer cover layer of the golf ball of Nesbitt to obtain a golf ball with “goof click and
feel” (id.). We agree.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007