Appeal No. 2003-1937
Application No. 09/522,296
and 4 based on Mockridge, Take, Helmstetter, Drajan and Motomiya;
and the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) relying on
Mockridge, Take, Helmstetter, Drajan and Mills, we have
additionally reviewed the patents to Minabe, Motomiya and Mills,
but find nothing therein that provides for that which we have
indicated above to be lacking in the examiner's basic combination
of Mockridge in view of Take, Helmstetter and Drajan.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 19,
20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not be
sustained.
The last of the examiner's rejections for our consideration
on appeal is that of claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Take,
Helmstetter and Drajan. In this instance, the examiner has
looked to the multi-piece golf club head of Endo, which is
similar to that seen in appellants' "Prior Art" Figures 28-29,
and urged that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellants' invention to modify
the golf club head of Endo "by casting the shaft securing portion
homogeneously with the remaining shell portion from a top portion
to a bottom portion of the shell, the motivation being to simply
1010
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007