Appeal 2007-2848
Application 10/765,106
claim 1 because they were not argued separately. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Obviousness
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12 and 15
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Cacicedo in view of Bloom, Radakovich, and Takeuchi.
Claims 11, 12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Radakovich and Takeuchi. Claims 6, 7, 9 and 10 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bloom in view of Radakovich, and
Takeuchi.
We select claims 1, 6 and 11 as representative of these rejections. 37
C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds that
Cacicedo discloses a hand grip having an oval shape with
a front edge having a larger radius than a rear edge (Fig. 10), an
upper edge and a lower edge (Fig. 17), an oval cross section
shape along substantially the entire handle between an upper
and lower edge (Fig. 17), and a grip cap having no vent hole
(Fig. 13) in order to establish a stiffness and feel to a hand grip
(Abstract).
(Answer 5.)
The Examiner acknowledges that
Cacicedo lacks a putter, an oval cross section shape along
the entire handle between an upper and lower edge, a length
dimension being perpendicular to a first plane of a ball striking
face, alignment indicia on an upper edge with a first alignment
line in a direction perpendicular to a first plane of a ball striking
face, a second alignment line being perpendicular to a first
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013