Appeal No. 2004-0049 Page 3
Application No. 10/047,626
the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13, filed April 22, 2003) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims14 to 17, 19 and 20
We sustain the rejection of claims 14 to 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 14, 19 and 20, the independent claims under appeal, read as follows:
14. A golf ball comprising:
a core;
an inner cover layer molded on said core, the inner cover layer comprising
a high acid ionomer including at least 16 % by weight of an alpha, beta-
unsaturated carboxylic acid; and
an outer cover layer molded on said inner cover layer, said outer cover
layer comprising a relatively soft polymeric material selected from the group
consisting of low flexural modulus ionomer resins and non-ionomeric elastomers.
19. A multi-layer golf ball comprising:
a spherical core;
an inner cover layer molded over said spherical core, said inner cover
layer comprising an ionomeric resin including at least 16% by weight of an alpha,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007