Appeal No. 96-0987
Application No. 08/226,467
in a vacuum, but in light of the specification disclosure and the
teachings of the prior art.
With this in mind, we first analyze independent claim
8, which recites, inter alia, an
Iron-type golf club head comprising a
hollow metal body incorporating an
internal cavity...an impact wall...
wherein said impact wall has an internal
surface coated with a thin layer of a
viscoelastic resin having damping
properties...said layer being adapted
for molding under low pressure or by
gravity using a reaction injection
molding process (RIM) [emphasis added].
Thus, the golf club head is recited as an article of manufacture
having a thin layer of viscoelastic resin coated on an internal
surface of the impact wall, which layer is subsequently recited
as being "adapted for molding...using a reaction injection
molding process (RIM)." Therefore, as claimed, it appears that
appellants intended the "layer" recited in appealed claim 8 to be
"adapted for molding" by the RIM process subsequent to the
formation of the golf club head. Consequently, it is our opinion
that the metes and bounds of appealed claim 8 cannot be
accurately determined and that claim 8, along with claims 9
through 14 dependent thereon, fail to comply with the provisions
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007