Appeal No. 2004-0049 Page 9
Application No. 10/047,626
With regard to claims 19 and 20, the recited inner cover layer having a modulus
of from about 15,000 to about 70,000 psi and/or the outer cover layer having a modulus
in a range of about 1,000 to about 30,000 psi is met by Nesbitt's inner cover 14 of
Surlyn® 1605 having a flexural modulus of about 51,000 psi and Nesbitt's outer cover
16 of Surlyn® 1855 having a flexural modulus of about 14,000 psi. Furthermore, the
recited inner cover layer having a modulus of from about 15,000 to about 70,000 psi is
met by Horiuchi's cover material, which has a modulus of about 42,670 to 85,340 psi,
when such material is substituted for the inner cover layer of Nesbitt's golf ball.
As to the appellant's argument pointing out the deficiencies of both Nesbitt and
Horiuchi on an individual basis, we note that it is well settled that nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the combined
teachings of the applied prior art are suggestive of the claimed subject for the reasons
set forth above.
In the brief (p. 8), the appellant has referenced the Board decision in a first
related appeal (i.e., Application No. 08/815,556). In response, the examiner (answer,
pp. 6 and 8) has referenced the Board decision in another related appeal (i.e.,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007