Appeal No. 2003-1426 Page 5
Application No. 09/635,638
the dimples is 250 mm3-450 mm3" (column 3, lines 64 and 65; emphasis added), and
then concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
the Melvin ball by providing “a total dimple volume of 530 to 750" (Answer, page 6). In
response to the appellants’ argument that “dimple trajectory volume” is not the same as
“dimple volume” (Brief, page 3), the examiner states on page 7 of the Answer that
Moriyama discloses a dimple “substantially the same shape to [sic] that of the
appellant’s [sic] dimple in appearance,” and then asserts on the basis of measurements
made on the drawing that because the Moriyama dimple shown in Figure 7 has the
same structure and dimension as the dimple disclosed by the appellants, it follows that
the Moriyama ball also must have the same dimple trajectory volume.
We agree with the appellants that the dimple depicted in Figure 7 of Moriyama is
on its face much different from that disclosed by the appellants, and that in the absence
of assurances that the drawings in a reference are to scale it is improper to base a
rejection upon measurements obtained from those drawings (see MPEP Section 2125).
Thus, an attempt to meet the limitation regarding dimple trajectory volume based upon
data obtained by the examiner’s measuring of the drawings cannot be relied upon.
Moreover, the mere fact that Moriyama states that the trajectory of a golf ball is related
to the number and configuration of the dimples does not, in and of itself, direct the
artisan to form the dimples in accordance with a “dimple trajectory volume,” much less
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007