Appeal No. 2002-1924 Page 5
Application No. 09/102,342
With this as background, we turn to the examiner's analysis of Sullivan as
applied by the examiner in this rejection claims 18 to 23 and 27 to 32. In this rejection,
the examiner ascertained (answer, pp. 3-4) that the subject matter of claims 18 to 23
and 27 to 32 were anticipated by the golf ball having formulation 35 (see Table 13 on
column 18). That golf ball has a solid preformed cross-linked polybutadiene core
(column 15, lines 55-56) and a cover made from 50% Iotek 959 and 50% Iotek 960
(Table 13). The cover has a thickness of 0.0675 inches and the golf ball has a
diameter of approximately 1.680 inches (column 15, lines 62-63). The golf ball has a
Riehle compression of 49 (Table 13). Sullivan teaches (column 12, lines 14-18) that
"[a]ccording to Exxon, Ioteks 959 and 960 contain from about 19.0 to about 21.0 by
weight acrylic acid with approximately 30 to about 70 percent of the acid groups
neutralized with sodium and zinc ions respectfully." Table 7 on column 12 provides that
the Shore D hardness of Iotek 959 is 66 and that the Shore D hardness of Iotek 960 is
57. The examiner provided (answer, p. 3) that a cover made from 50% Iotek 959 and
50% Iotek 960 inherently has a Shore D hardness of 681 citing Table 3 on page 37 of
the appellants' specification (presumingly cover 2 having a formulation as provided on
page 35 of the specification of 45.2% Iotek 959, 45.2% Iotek 960 and 9.6% MB2).
1 The appellants have not contested this determination of inherency made by the examiner.
2 MB is comprised of 74.9 wt-% Iotek 7030, 23.8 wt-% TiO2, 0.01 wt-% Unitex OB, 0.002 wt-%
ultra marine blue and 300 ppm Santonox R.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007