Appeal No. 2003-1937
Application No. 09/522,296
provide the added benefits [sic, of] enhanced rigidity throughout
the shaft securing means" (answer, page 7). The examiner has
also urged that the selection by the club maker to assemble the
shell in Endo through either the mating of diverse parts or
through the casting of a single piece would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made, because it has been held to be
within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to make
integral that which has heretofore been made in separate parts.
Our reasons stated above for not sustaining the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 6 through 12, 14, 15, 18, 28 and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mockridge in view
of Take, Helmstetter and Drajan, apply equally well here, where
we consider that the examiner has again relied upon impermissible
hindsight derived from appellants' own teachings in seeking to
combine selected portions of the applied references to Take,
Helmstetter and Drajan, and/or broad concepts contained therein,
with the distinctly different golf club head arrangement shown in
Endo in an effort to arrive at appellants' claimed subject
matter. We also again find the examiner's attempt to dispose of
appellants' claimed subject matter as being obvious because it
has been held to be within the level of one of ordinary skill in
1111
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007