Appeal No. 2002-0080 Page 6
Application No. 09/170,216
Here, we observe that the claims on appeal require a three
piece golf ball comprising a single solid core with a specified
deflection property, a cover inner layer and a cover outer layer,
with each such cover layer having a specified hardness and
thickness. See the sole independent claim 1.3 We determine that
the ordinary meaning of the term "three piece" and “single” as
used in appellants’ claims requires that the golf ball be made of
three pieces, including a single solid core and two cover
layers.4 However, the single solid core is not limited to a
single layer core as urged by appellants but rather a single
solid core that may comprise either a single layer or a multi
layer core. See page 4, lines 10-14 and 19-21, page 5, lines 16-
29, page 6, lines 4-7, and page 8, lines 31-34 of appellants’
specification. Consequently, our claim construction is
3 We note that dependent claim 2 appears to recite a broader
range for the hardness of the cover outer layer than provided for
in independent claim 1 raising an issue with respect to the
proper dependent status thereof which should be addressed by
appellants and the examiner in the event of further prosecution
of this application.
4 Appellants do not argue with the examiner’s determination
that Yamagishi discloses, either expressly or inherently, a golf
ball meeting every limitation of the invention set forth in
representative claim 1 including the core deflection property and
inner and outer cover layer hardness and thickness parameters but
for the “three piece” and “single core” limitations.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007