Appeal No. 2002-1026 Page 7
Application No. 09/239,403
for a rejection under Section 103. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We agree with the appellants that when the purposes of the
ranges are different and the overlapping simply occurs by happenstance, obviousness
is not present. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071-1075-76, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1600 (Fed .
Cir. 1988).
It therefore is our conclusion that the teachings of Yabuki do not establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1, and
we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or, it follows, of claim 4, which depends
therefrom.
We reach the same conclusion, for the same reasons, with regard to
independent claim 16, which stands rejected on the same basis. This claim recites a
more limited range for core diameter than claim 1, and specifies identical ranges for
core weight, inner cover layer thickness, and inner cover weight with core. The
rejection of claim 16 is not sustained.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-15 and 17 stand rejected as being unpatentable over
Yabuki in view of Matsuki, the latter being cited because it “discloses a well known
technique of altering a multi-layer golf ball’s characteristics to achieve a desired result
as well as describes a golf ball having improved qualities, such as flight distance and
the resistance to hook and slice.” The examiner concludes, based upon the teachings
of Matsuki, that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to modify the patent to Yabuki ‘285 by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007