Appeal No. 2002-1924 Page 10
Application No. 09/102,342
Claims 19 to 23 and 29
The appellants argue (brief, p. 14) that the rejection ignores many features
recited in each of the claims under appeal. However, this argument does not point out
any specific limitation in claims 19 to 23 and 29 which is not met by Sullivan. It is not
the function of the Board to examine the claims in greater detail than that argued by an
appellant, looking for distinctions over the prior art. Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952
F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d
1019, 1022, 201 USPQ 658, 661 (CCPA 1979). Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 19 to 23 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Sullivan is affirmed.
The anticipation and obviousness rejection based on Horiuchi
We sustain the rejection of claims 18 to 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Horiuchi.
In this rejection, the examiner set forth an analysis (answer, pp. 4-5) as to how
the subject matter of claims 18 to 29 were met or suggested by the golf balls having
ionomer covers set forth in Table 1 of Horiuchi which analysis we incorporate as our
own. Included in that analysis, the examiner explained why the golf balls would
inherently have a Shore D hardness of at least 65.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007