Appeal No. 1998-2057 Page 15
Application 08/331,541
an inch longer than the length of a #7 iron recommended for a
golfer with a fingertip to floor distance of over 30 inches.
We conclude that it is highly speculative to suggest that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the length of
a 38-inch #7 iron by increasing the shaft length by 1-inch,
even for a severely distorted address position. Accordingly,
we cannot sustain the stated rejection of claims 18 and 32
based on the disclosures in Pfau and Paul.
Claims 19 through 22 and 33 through 35, dependent on
independent claim 18 or 32, contain all of the limitations of
their respective independent claim. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection of claims 19 through 22 and 33 through 35
under
35 U.S.C. § 103 also cannot be sustained.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this application to the examiner to consider
the patentability of the claimed subject matter in view of the
Divnick reference and other known relevant prior art. Divnick
discloses an adjustable golf club which can be adjusted to
every loft position as with a complete set of conventional
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007