Appeal No. 1998-2057 Page 10
Application 08/331,541
standard #6 iron by one or more degrees in order to customize
the club for a golfer who consistently hit the ball too high
or too low, following the teaching in Paul at page 364. As to
the head mass, Paul and Pfau clearly teach that one of
ordinary skill would have increased the club length of a
standard #6 iron club to compensate for a greater than average
fingertip to floor distance and would have decreased the head
mass or weight of the standard #6 iron in order to maintain a
desired swing weight.
The appellants argue that Pfau teaches reducing the face
angle and increasing the mass of the #1 or #2 wood and teaches
nothing with respect to a #5 iron (brief, page 13 and 14).
This argument is not persuasive because nonobviousness cannot
be established by attacking the references individually when
the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We now turn to the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 28. Claim 28 calls for a set of golf clubs belonging
to the category of irons containing a series of clubs having
respective lengths that vary inversely to the face angles
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007