Appeal No. 1999-2033 Page 2
Application No. 08/737,928
set forth a 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 14, 16, 20 and 21 and states on page 2 that
claims 14, 16, 18 and 20 “have been allowed as set forth in the advisory action.” The
answer, however, indicates on page 5 that claims 14, 16 and 20 would be allowable if
rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections set forth in the answer and to include
all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and that claim 21 would be
allowable if amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection set forth in the answer.
While such inconsistencies in the answer are clearly improper, in the interest of efficiency,
we have decided this appeal by treating as rejected all claims which are expressly
rejected in the answer and treating as allowed or objected to all claims which are not
1
expressly rejected in the answer. As the answer sets forth a rejection of claims 17 and 18
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, a rejection of claims 12, 13 and 22-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and a rejection of claims 15, 19 and 25-31 under 35 U.S.C. §
103, this appeal involves claims 12, 13, 15, 17-19 and 22-31.
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a golf club head (claims 12, 13, 15, 17-19 and
22-25) which includes, a detachable assembly of a recessed body and a housing
(specification, page 1), as well as a golf club head assembly (claims 26-29) and method
1Any rejection not restated in the answer will be assumed to have been withdrawn. See Ex parte
Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007