Appeal No. 2001-0030
Application No. 08/685,680
1775 (Fed. Cir. 2000). On the other hand, this record contains little if any evidence in
support of the appellants’ burden to show that these prior art ingredients would
materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the here-claimed golf ball. In re
De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 874, 143 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1964). Therefore, we share
the examiner’s conclusion that it is proper to interpret the appealed claims as not
excluding such prior art ingredients.
We also discern no convincing merit in the appellants’ argument that no basis
exists for combining the primary reference teachings with the teachings of the
secondary Yamada references. From our perspective, an artisan of ordinary skill would
have been motivated to provide the golf ball cores of the primary references with the
golf ball covers of Yamada ‘038 or Yamada ‘655 in order to obtain the benefits of such
covers which are expressly taught in the Yamada references. Such benefits include
superior flight distance (e.g., see the abstracts of the Yamada references) which the
artisan clearly would have considered to be desirable for the golf balls of the primary
references.
For the above stated reasons and those expressed in the answer, we hereby
sustain each of the § 103 rejections advanced by the examiner in this appeal.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007