Appeal No. 1999-1979
Application No. 08/758,788
Appellant has not explained, nor is it evident, why the
putting characteristics of the golf club disclosed by Fisher
would not be varied, if the club were used with inserts of
different weight, texture and hardness. Thus, the examiner’s
determination that Fisher discloses, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of the
invention recited in claim 1 is well taken.
Therefore, we will sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Fisher.
It follows, based on appellant’s grouping of claims 1 and 20,
supra, that the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim
20 will also be sustained.
Rejection (II)
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and further requires that
the recess and the ball striking insert both have chamfered
corner portions.
Appellant does not contest the examiner’s determination
that putting chamfered corner portions on the insert taught by
Fisher would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007