Appeal No. 2002-0080 Page 7
Application No. 09/170,216
consistent with the requirement that the claims of the
application be given the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification as they would be construed by
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We further
observe that the above-noted description in appellants’
specification is not inconsistent with the solid core described
at column 5, lines 20-27 of Yamagishi. Also, see the golf ball
described in Table 1, Example 6 of Yamagishi.
It follows that, on this record, we shall sustain the
examiner’s anticipation rejection.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Yamagishi is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007