Appeal No. 2002-0109
Application No. 09/110,221
In the examiner’s view, Matsuki discloses a golf ball having
a solid rubber core like that broadly claimed by appellants (col.
2, lines 41-51) and a cover made of an ionomer resin containing a
titanium dioxide whitening agent (col. 3, lines 46-49 and
Examples 1, 3 and 4). Recognizing that Matsuki does not disclose
or teach the high level of whitening agent set forth in
appellants’ claims on appeal or the coefficient of restitution
(COR) required therein, the examiner contends (final rejection,
pages 2-3) that:
since the material used for the golf ball are the same
it can be assumed the properties, such as the
coefficient of restitution, will also be the same.
Also, Applicant should be aware that simple variations
in amounts of identical materials are (titanium
dioxide) not patentable distinctions, unless the
amounts can be proven to be critical to the invention.
However, even if the quantity resulted in great
improvement over the prior art the modification is
still within the capabilities of one skilled in the
art. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to show any
criticality of the amounts of titanium dioxide used in
the invention. It would have been obvious for one
skilled in the art to modify the quantity of titanium
dioxide in the invention of Matsuki et al in order to
achieve optimum conditions for the golf ball.
In the answer (page 4), the examiner attempts to further
justify the rejection by urging that where general parameters are
set forth in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007