Appeal No. 2001-0030
Application No. 08/685,680
“consisting essentially of” language in appealed claim 1. Although isocyanate is not
expressly disclosed in the subject specification as an ingredient of the appellants’ golf
ball core, we share the examiner’s determination that an isocyanate cross-linker, for
example, of the type by Molitor (e.g., see lines 34-66 in column 4) would be properly
considered a vulcanization auxiliary or adjustor of the type disclosed on lines 17-20 of
specification page 6 as a possible ingredient of the appellants’ core composition.
Furthermore, we agree with the examiner that the specification examples (e.g., see
Table 1 on page 11) establish that the here-claimed core may include a plurality of
vulcanization affecting ingredients, contrary to the appellants’ apparent belief.
As a final point concerning the isocyanate ingredient of Molitor specifically, we
emphasis that the enhanced coefficient of restitution obtained by patentee’s use of this
ingredient (e.g., see lines 5-11 in column 2) does not militate against a determination
that the golf balls of the appealed claims and of Molitor possess the same basic and
novel properties or characteristics as the appellants seem to believe. See In re Herz,
537 F.2d 549, 551, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976). This is particularly so because
an enhanced coefficient of restitution relates to enhanced flight distance (see lines 25-
30 in column 1 of Molitor) which is one of the properties or characteristics desired by
the appellants (e.g., see the abstract as well as page 1 of the subject specification).
In summary, the record before us contains substantial evidence in support of the
examiner’s conclusion that the appealed claims do not exclude the prior art ingredients
identified by the appellants. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1308, 53 USPQ2d 1769,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007