Appeal No. 96-1823
Application No. 08/187,521
skilled artisan to extend and apply the teachings of Okumoto,
which is concerned with club head feel, to Bills, which is
concerned with shaft feel.
Our review of Bills, Fry and Okumoto reveals that the
teachings therein would not have rendered the claimed subject
matter obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at
the time of the appellant's invention. In that regard, we see no
teaching in the applied prior art that would have suggested
either of the following limitations: (1) a rigid filling
replacing the air within the putter shaft, wherein the rigid
filling comprises an epoxy resin filled with microballoons, as
recited in claim 1, or (2) injecting the microballoon filled
liquid epoxy resin into the handle end of the putter shaft and
then permitting the epoxy resin to cure within the putter shaft
as recited in claim 5. We agree with the appellant's argument
(brief, p. 4) that the complete filling of Bills' shaft with the
epoxy resin and microballoon mixture of Okumoto would destroy the
normal sort of shaft flex that Bills teaches to provide in his
club shaft. Thus, it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellant's
invention to completely fill Bills' shaft with Okumoto's mixture.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007