Appeal No. 2004-0086 4
Application No. 09/730,868
Cadorniga is likewise directed to a golf ball having improved configurations of
dimples so as to provide for, “excellent range and accuracy.” See column 3, line 54 to
column 4, line 4. We find that Cadorniga discusses therein the same peripheral boundary
layer forces which affect the distance traversed by a golf ball. Id. In this respect we find
that Cadorniga is directed to a golf ball having a configuration wherein the dimples have a
major dimple configuration comprising a first recess and a minor dimple configuration
comprising a second recess in the bottom wall of the major dimple configuration which
contributes to the range and accuracy of the golf ball. See column 1, lines 42-57.
Inasmuch as the Cadorniga reference teaches yet another dimple for the same purpose as
the dimple combinations disclosed by Oka, it would have been obvious to the person
having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a combination of dimples as disclosed by
Oka wherein one of the dimples in the combination is that disclosed by Cadorniga,
particularly as the dimples of Cadorniga are used for the identical purpose as that disclosed
by Oka.
Based upon the above considerations, we conclude that the examiner has established
a prima facie case of obviousness against the claimed subject matter. In our view the prior
art would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen a dimple
designed for improved range and accuracy as one of the dimples to be utilized in the
combination of dimples disclosed by Oka. As each of the references is directed to
improvements in golf ball flight technology, there are both ample motivation and a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007