Appeal No. 2002-1904
Application No. 09/156,540
video cameras within the scope of claim 16, particularly in view of the fact that Schmoll
wanted to isolate an image at approximately the moment of impact with the ball.
Further, the high-speed nature of the cameras would have meant that the golf ball, in
addition to the golf club and the golfer, would have appeared in the video images.
Moreover, claim 16 does not recite that any analysis is performed with respect to the
image of the golf ball. The configuring and dimensioning of the “second club” is based
on data obtained “from the position of the first golf club during the golfer’s swing,” which
is precisely the data disclosed by Schmoll in the analysis for configuring and
dimensioning of the second club.
Even if Schmoll were not regarded as teaching use of a high-speed video
camera as required by claim 16, such suggestion is present in additional prior art
applied against the claim. Butler discloses a data acquisition and display system 60
(Fig. 8) which utilizes a specialized golf club 62 (Fig. 9) having bending or deflection
sensors. Col. 5, l. 24 - col. 6, l. 12. The system includes a high speed camera 106 to
take a series of high speed pictures of the golfer just before, during, and after impact
with the ball. Col. 8, ll. 1-9. Because an important parameter is the launch angle of the
ball which occurs at the point of impact of the club head (col. 4, ll. 46-48), software in
the data acquisition system determines launch angle of the ball and a measure of
distance in yards that the ball would normally travel. Col. 8, ll. 43-61. Acquisition of the
travel-distance information does not require use of the specialized golf club. Butler
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007