Appeal No. 2004-0099 Page 2
Application No. 09/388,663
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a golf club metal wood (claims 22 and 25-
28), and to sets of golf club metal woods (claims 16-21). An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 22, which has been
reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:1
Davis 5,228,688 Jul. 20, 1993
Muldoon 5,421,098 Jun. 6, 1995
Kobayashi 5,421,577 Jun. 6, 1995
Cheng 5,643,108 Jul. 1, 1997
Eberle 5,779,559 Jul. 14, 1998
Cook et al. (Cook) 5,879,241 Mar. 9, 1999
Claims 16-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Davis in view of Kobayashi, Muldoon, Cheng, Cook and Eberle.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 21) and the final rejection (Paper No. 16) for the examiner's complete
1In the Answer the examiner listed ten patents which were “not relied upon but cited to develop
what is known in the art by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention” (Answer, page 3). Since
these references were not applied against the claims in the statement of the rejection but merely were
mentioned as a group in the examiner’s response to the appellant’s argument (Answer, page 23), we have
not considered them.
2Cheng, Cook and Eberle actually were applied only against claim 16.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007