Appeal No. 1999-1979
Application No. 08/758,788
Rather, appellant argues that Fisher does not teach, suggest
or disclose a golf club in which the insert is constructed
from one of a group of materials having varying hardness or
pads constructed from a group of materials having different
weights or textures
(brief, pages 7 and 8). For the reasons set forth, above, in
our discussion of the rejection of claim 1, we find
appellant’s arguments equally unpersuasive with respect to the
rejection of claim 6.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher.
Rejections (III), (IV) and (V)
With respect to each of the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claim 26 over Fisher in view of Kenon, claim 28
over Fisher in view of Ebbing, Huggins, Tucker and Sturm, and
claim 29 over Huggins in view of Fisher, appellant again
argues that Fisher does not teach, suggest or disclose a golf
club in which the insert is constructed from one of a group of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007