Appeal No. 2001-0030
Application No. 08/685,680
noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons expressed in the answer and below, we will sustain each of the
rejections before us in this appal.
It is the examiner’s basic position that each of the applied primary references
teaches (or at least would have suggested) a golf ball core of the type here-claimed but
differs from the appealed claims with respect to the appellants’ claimed golf ball cover.
In this latter regard, the examiner finds that Yamada ‘038 or Yamada ‘655 discloses a
golf ball cover corresponding to the here-claimed cover and concludes that it would
have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to provide the golf ball core of
the respective primary references with a golf ball cover of the type and for the reasons
taught by Yamada ‘038 or Yamada ‘655.
On the other hand, the appellants argue that their claimed golf ball core
patentably distinguishes over those of the primary references because the latter include
ingredients said to be excluded from the appealed claims by virtue of the “consisting
essentially of” language in the appealed independent claim. Further, the
appellants argue that no basis exists for combining the teachings of the primary
references with the teachings of the secondary Yamada references in the manner
proposed by the examiner.
It is well settled that the language “consisting essentially of” renders a claim open
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007