Appeal No. 2002-0322
Application 08/681,870
consisting of methyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, and ethyl acrylate, the acid copolymer comprising
about 0 to 90 parts by weight of the overall composition and the ethylene copolymer comprising
100 to 10 parts by weight of the composition, the cover further including a metal salt of a
member selected from the group consisting of zinc, potassium, lithium, calcium, sodium, nickel,
magnesium, and manganese.
10. A golf ball having a core and a cover, said cover comprising:
about 0 to 90 parts by wt of an acid copolymer including about 1% to 30% parts by
weight carboxylic acid such that about 10 to 90% of the carboxyl groups are neutralized with a
metal cation; and
about 100 to 10 parts by weight of an ethylene copolymer including up to about 30% by
weight of a hydrolyzed alkyl acrylate such that about 5% to 90% of the ester groups are
neutralized with an alkali metal cation.
The appealed claims are drawn to a golf ball having a core and cover, with the cover
comprising at least 10 parts of an ethylene copolymer which can optionally include up to about
30% by weight of an alkyl acrylate, the ethylene copolymer being hydrolyzed and neutralized to
some extent in appealed claims 1 and 10, and merely in the presence of some amount, no matter
how small, of a specified metal salt in appealed claim 9.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Horiuchi et al. (Horiuchi) 5,508,351 Apr. 16, 1996
(filed Aug. 6, 1993)
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (2002)
as being anticipated by Horiuchi.
Appellants state in their brief (page 3) that the appealed claims “should stand or fall
together.” Appellants have also separately argued appealed claims 1, 9 and 10, which arguments
have been responded to by the examiner. We determine that the issues presented in this appeal
involve different limitations in each of appealed claims 1, 9 and 10, respectively, and since these
claims have been separately considered by both appellants and the examiner, we therefore find it
appropriate in this instance to decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1, 9 and 10. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) (2000).
We affirm the ground of rejection with respect to appealed claims 1 through 8 and
10 through 15 and reverse with respect to appealed claim 9.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007