Appeal No. 2002-0080 Page 5
Application No. 09/170,216
the prior art as comprising a golf ball having a single solid
core” (brief, page 5).2 In this regard, appellants (brief, page
5) contend that the golf ball “core is defined as a single layer”
in appellants’ claims by the claim language requiring a three
piece solid golf ball and “[a] single solid core and a cover of
two-layer structure consisting of an inner layer and an outer
layer.”
The examiner, on the other hand, has found that the claim
language does not exclude a golf ball having a two layer core
together with inner and outer cover layers as described in
Yamagishi.
Therefore, we must analyze the claim language to determine
the scope and meaning of each contested limitation. See Gechter
v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
1997). During examination proceedings, claim language is given
its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification as it would have been interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152,
36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
2 We consider the propriety of the examiner’s rejection in
light of the arguments made by appellants in the brief. See
37 CFR § 192(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007