Appeal 2007-2848
Application 10/765,106
We find the Examiner has provided sufficient evidence in the
prior art to support a prima facie case of obviousness, including
motivation to combine the cited references.
Appellant contends, "both Cacicedo and Bloom are improperly
relied upon to teach a handle having the same cross-sectional shape
along its entire length." (Br. 13.) Appellant argues that the grip of
Dishner is not oval but is circular, and the grip of Eberle is neither
elliptical or oval. (Br. 13.) The Appellant concludes therefore, that
no combination of the cited references meets the claimed shape. (Id.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Both Eberle and
Dishner disclose a golf club handle for gripping the club which
extends at least ½ the length of the club. Dishner’s Fig. 3 shows a
club with an essentially oval cross sectional shape, wherein the length
of the club adapts to a wide variance of personal stances and
physiognomy. (Dishner, col. 4, ll. 11-14.) We find both Dishner and
Eberle provide evidence in the prior art that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to modify the handle of Cacicedo
to have a length adaptable to a wide variance of personal stances and
physiognomy. In the present case, the extended handle length
provides for adaptation of the club to a variety of stances and body
types. Therefore extension of the handle length of Cacicedo would
provide a predictable adaptation of the club to a variety of stances and
body types in accordance with its established function. KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The rejections of claims 3, 8, and 13 are affirmed.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013