Appeal 2007-2848
Application 10/765,106
perform differently than that of Takeuchi. Radakovich similarly
provides an angled sighting device.
Appellant argues his alignment system is for sighting the club
relative to the ball. (Br. 9.) Appellant argues the alignment system of
Radakovich is for sighting a club relative to a target and not for
aligning a club relative to the ball. However, Radakovich states that
its golf club sighting apparatus is for precise alignment of the golf
club head to a golf ball for improving accuracy to a designated target.
(Radakovich, col. 1, ll. 5-10.) Thus Radakovich's ultimate goal is to
improve sighting and accuracy of the club head to the ball and the ball
to the target. The fitting angle adjustment mark of Takeuchi is also to
align the golfer’s grip and provide an arrangement of the club in
accordance with the golfer's usual hitting of the ball. (Takeuchi, col.
1, ll. 24-30.) Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant's
argument that the sighting devices of the prior art are for different
purposes.
This rejection is affirmed.
Claims 3, 8 and 13
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Cacicedo in view of Bloom, Radakovich and Takeuchi and further in
view of Eberle or Dishner. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as obvious over Bloom in view of Radakovich, and Takeuchi, and further in
view of Eberle or Dishner. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Radakovich in view of Takeuchi, and further in
view of Eberle or Dishner. Each of the claims require that the “handle
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013