Appeal No. 1997-4000
Application 08/319,004
polyurethane.
The appellants’ arguments (see pages 5 and 6 in the main
brief) that the subject matter recited in claim 1 is not
anticipated by Petruccelli are essentially the same as those
advanced with respect to the § 102(b) rejection based on Kaye,
and are not persuasive for the same reasons. As noted above,
Petruccelli expressly teaches that the club disclosed therein
has the same shape or configuration as a traditional club.
Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by
Petruccelli.
We shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claims 2, 5 and 7 as being anticipated by
Petruccelli and the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 6 as being unpatentable over Petruccelli in view of
Mosier since the appellants, grouping these claims with claim
1 (see page 4 in the main brief), have not separately
challenged these rejections.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claims 3 and 8 as being anticipated by
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007