Appeal No. 2002-0970
Application 09/181,814
page 3). The shell 14, however, does not comprise the core of
Molitor’s golf ball. In this regard, Molitor expressly
distinguishes the shell 14, which actually corresponds to the
“cover” set forth in claims 1 and 11, from the core 12 of the
ball. The core 12, which as indicated above is a unitary element
made of either liquid or solid material, simply does not
constitute “a hollow core composed of a hollow portion and at
least one hollow core outer layer defining the hollow portion” as
recited in claims 1 and 11 under any reasonable meaning of this
language.
This structural difference between the core recited in
claims 1 and 11 and that disclosed by Molitor also undermines the
examiner’s related contention that the “secondary natural
frequency” limitations are met under principles of inherency.
The examiner’s rationale here is that because the core of
Molitor’s ball is structurally identical to the core set forth in
the appellants’ claims, a sound basis exists for concluding that
the Molitor ball inherently possesses the secondary natural
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007