Ex Parte Sullivan - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2004-0049                                                               Page 2                
             Application No. 10/047,626                                                                               


                                                  BACKGROUND                                                          
                    The appellant's invention relates to improved golf balls comprising multi-layer                   
             covers which have a hard inner layer and a relatively soft outer layer (specification, p.                
             1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's                   
             brief.                                                                                                   


                    The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                   
             appealed claims are:                                                                                     
             Nesbitt                            4,431,193                   Feb. 14, 1984                             
             Isaac                              5,000,459                   Mar. 19, 1991                             
             Horiuchi et al. (Horiuchi)         5,222,739                   June 29, 1993                             



                    Claims 14 to 17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                          
             unpatentable over Nesbitt in view of Horiuchi and the appellant's disclosure.                            


                    Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                         
             Nesbitt in view of Horiuchi, the appellant's disclosure and Isaac.                                       


                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                     
             the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer                      
             (Paper No. 14, mailed July 2, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of                  







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007