Appeal No. 2000-0486
Application No. 08/853,651
the art and not from the appellants' disclosure. See, e.g.,
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5
USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988).
In our view, the combined teachings of Fenton, Teramoto
and Hogan would not have led an artisan to arrive at the
claimed invention. In that regard, it is our opinion that the
combination of an iron-type head and a shaft having a length
between 33 to 40 inches, a weight less than or equal to 85
grams, a tip portion outer diameter greater than or equal to
.38 inches and less than or equal to .40 inches, a tip portion
inner diameter greater than or equal to 0.15 inches and a tip
portion wall thickness between 0.04 and 0.125 inches is not
suggested by the applied prior art. Specifically, we see no
motivation, suggestion or teaching in Hogan of the
desirability of making the tip portion wall thickness of the
Fenton shaft 2.94 mm (0.116 inches), particularly in view of
the fact that the shaft in Hogan is substantially longer and
heavier than the shaft disclosed in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007