Appeal No. 2002-1904
Application No. 09/156,540
We thus sustain the section 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 16, 23, 28, and 31-
34.
Claims 3-5, 10-14, 17-20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30
Although appellants suggest that claims 3-5, 10-14, 17-20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29,
and 30 require more than that set forth by the claims, representative claim 17 recites
determining from stored video images the amount the predetermined dimensions of the
golf club must be adjusted to provide the golfer with predetermined performance of the
golf ball following impact by the club.1 We need go no further than Schmoll to find the
teaching alleged to be lacking from the prior art. As we have discussed supra in our
consideration of the disclosure of Schmoll, the reference teaches the additional
requirements of claim 17 at least at col. 5, lines 17 through 37.
We sustain the section 103 rejection of claims 3-5, 10-14, 17-20, 22, 24, 25, 27,
29, and 30.
Claims 6, 15, 21, 26
Appellants assert that the references fail to teach or suggest the confirming step
of representative claim 21. The rejection relies on Butler and Gobush for suggestion of
the additional parameters recited by the claim. In response to appellants’ arguments,
1 Although “said golf club” in claim 17 lacks proper antecedent, we interpret the reference to be to
the claim 16 “first” golf club, as that is the one from which video images are obtained.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007