Appeal No. 2000-0082
Application No. 08/745,472
answer, we conclude that the claims on appeal are patentable
over the prior art as applied in rejection (1) to (5), supra.
Our reasons for this conclusion are discussed below.
Each of independent claims 1, 15 and 21 contains a
similar limitation concerning the relative masses of the
proximal heel portion and distal toe portion of the club head:
Claims 1 and 21 recite that the distal toe portion has "a mass
which is less than the mass of the [said] proximal heel
portion," while claim 15 recites proximal and distal
bulkheads, with "said proximal bulkhead having a mass which is
greater than the mass of said distal bulkhead." Our
discussion concerning the patentability of the appealed claims
will focus on these limitations.
We do not find an express disclosure in any of the
applied references of a club head in which the distal portion
has a smaller mass than the proximal portion. Nevertheless,
the examiner considers that it would have been obvious to so
construct the club head disclosed by Simmons. As the examiner
argues on pages 13 and 14 of the answer (emphasis added):
Simmons clearly states that weights [40, 41] are
positioned in the distal and proximal bulkheads and
the weights may vary depending on the requirements
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007