Appeal No. 2000-1272
Application No. 08/861,095
different methods for exposing the earthen body of the used tee to the ground, thereby
allowing the used tee to “return” to ground as appellants described the degrading process
on page 2 of the main brief.
In the Takeno patent, the composition of the non-biodegradable coating for the
earthen tee body is such that it will be weakened by water to allow the earthen body and
the binder to effloresce. In the Whelan patent, the non-biodegradable coating is weak
enough to be broken by a grass mower, thereby exposing the body of the tee to the
ground. Thus, neither of these references teaches or suggests appellants’ claimed
solution involving a biodegradable coating.
In contrast to the Takeno and Whelan patents, the Mang reference does not
identify the article or structure to be covered by the biodegradable coating. Moreover,
Mang is not concerned with a means for exposing a body to the ground to allow the body
to degrade into the ground. Thus, Mang does not teach or suggest the use of a
biodegradable coating as an alternative way of exposing a substance to the ground.
In support of his rejection, the examiner contends that the “desirable strength
characteristics” of Mang’s polyester would have made it obvious to substitute Mang’s
biodegradable polyester for the non-biodegradable coating of either Takeno or Whelan
(see the paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 of the answer). The difficulty with this
position is that the examiner has not established that the strength of Mang’s
biodegradable polyester is greater than the golf tee coatings disclosed in either Takeno or
Whelan to make the proposed substitution advantageous.
The Demarais patent, which is cited in support of the rejections of claims 9-12,
does not rectify the deficiencies of Takeno, Whelan and Mang.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007