Appeal No. 2003-1610 Page 7
Application No. 09/715,128
include titanium, a new alloy and glass or graphite reinforced composite
materials.
. . .
As mentioned, the invention includes maximizing the launch velocity of the
ball while staying within the prescribed rules of the USGA.
The invention satisfies the USGA rule at high impact velocity of 160 ft/sec,
but gives a higher coefficient of restitution than a conventional club head at lower
velocity.
Chou discloses (column 5, line 20, to column 6, line 22) a wood club head
having (1) a titanium trampoline plate 16 having a thickness of 0.10 inch; (2) a titanium
stopper plate 34 having a thickness of 0.15 inch; and (3) an air gap between the two
plates of 1.9 mm. Chou teaches that the stopper plate 34 is of sufficient thickness to
form a rigid and stiff wall for arresting the deformation of the trampoline plate and that
other materials and thicknesses may be selected for the stopper plate, the prime
consideration being to achieve a stopper plate that is stiff and rigid.
The appellant argues throughout both briefs that the claimed thickness of the
rear face (i.e.,a thickness in a range of 1.5 mm to 2.3 mm) is not taught or suggested by
Chou. We agree. Chou specifically teaches a preferred thickness of 0.15 inch (3.81
mm) for the stopper plate 34 (i.e., rear face). While Chou does teach that other
materials and thicknesses may be selected for the stopper plate, we fail to find any
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007