Appeal 2006-1969
Application 10/712,942
Appellants argue that Isaac does not disclose a multi-layer cover, or more
particularly, a multi-layer cover having a polyurethane outer cover layer, and is solely
directed to a single cover layer golf ball (Brief, page 7).5
This argument is not persuasive. The examiner has not applied Isaac for a teaching
of a cover layer to replace the entire cover layer of Nesbitt. The examiner has applied
Isaac for its teaching that the cover of a golf ball can be made from polyurethane to
produce advantageous results, i.e., a “good click and feel” (Answer, page 3). Additionally,
we note that Isaac discloses the advantages and disadvantages of the popular cover layer
material “Surlyn,” which is the same ionomer exemplified by Nesbitt (Isaac, col. 1, ll. 15-23;
see Nesbitt, col. 2, ll. 30-48). Isaac goes on to teach the advantages of using
polyurethane as a substitute for balata (the original golf ball cover) or Surlyn, e.g., its
relatively low price, good cut resistance, and good click and feel (col. 1, ll. 24-31; see the
Answer, page 9). Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that it would have been well
within the ordinary skill in the golf ball art to replace the outer cover of Nesbitt with a
5Appellants do not argue any particular claim with specificity (see the Brief, pages
7-8). Therefore we select claim 19 from the group of rejected claims and limit our
consideration to this claim alone. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii)(2004).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007