Appeal No. 2003-1937
Application No. 09/522,296
with the remaining shell portion from a top portion to a bottom
portion of the shell, the motivation being to simply provide the
added benefits [sic] enhanced rigidity throughout the shaft
securing means." The examiner also asserts that
the selection by the clubmaker to assemble the shell in
Mockridge through either the mating of diverse parts or
through the casting of a single piece would have been
obvious at the time the invetion was made, as it has
been held to be within the level of one of ordinary
skill in the art to make integral that which has been
heretofore been made in separate parts.
Appellants argue (brief, pages 7-9) that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, because
there would be no reason or motivation for one skilled in the art
to combine the disclosures of any of the applied prior art
references in the manner suggested by the examiner or in a manner
which would result in the claimed subject matter. In particular,
appellants contend that Take expressly teaches away from a shaft-
securing portion like that claimed in the present application,
because it states in column 4, lines 35-40, that the portion of
shaft (29) disposed in the club head body (45) is supported at
two points by shaft support portions (51) and (53), and that such
shaft portion is "not supported around its entire periphery by a
peripheral wall . . . integral with the head body." A similar
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007