Appeal No. 2002-1198
Application 09/349,306
Looking first at the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combined teachings of Williams,
White and Gidney, we note that Williams discloses a golf putter
having an elongate shaft (16) and a putter head (4) that is
equipped with three ball-striking surfaces (13, 34 and 36). As
noted in column 1, lines 37-57, the Williams putter can be used
by either right-handed or left-handed golfers, employing either a
stance facing the target or a stance facing perpendicular to the
ball roll path, thereby allowing a golfer to experiment with
different stances and, with the benefit of such experimentation,
permitting the golfer to adopt the stance and stroke that is most
comfortable and productive. Figures 7, 8, 10 and 11 show golfers
using the putter of Williams in a non-conventional stance facing
the target golf hole, while Figures 13 and 14 show golfers using
the putter in conventional stances facing perpendicular to the
ball roll path.
The examiner’s position that Williams “clearly teaches that
the golfer can choose an appropriate posture, including a fully
erect stance” (answer, pages 7-8), and that Williams (Figs. 8 and
10) “disclose that the golfer stands in ‘erect’ posture” (final
rejection, page 5), is unsupported by the teachings of that
reference. Nothing in the Williams patent teaches or suggests a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007