Appeal No. 2004-0099 Page 7
Application No. 09/388,663
the loft and lie of the Davis clubs in such a manner as to meet the terms of each of
claims 25, 26, 27 and 28. The rejection of claims 25-28 is not sustained.
Independent claim 17 is directed to a set of at least two correlated golf club
metal woods, the first club recited being the one to which claim 22 is directed and the
second the one set forth in claim 25. Dependent claims 19 and 20 add to claim 17,
seriatim, the clubs singularly recited in claims 26, 27 and 28. Independent claim 21 is
directed to a set of three correlated golf club metal woods, the first being the same as
that set out in claim 22, and the other two being described in terms of differences in
shaft length, loft, and lie from the club of claim 22 and from one another. Dependent
claims 23 and 24 add more clubs to the set of claim 21, also described in terms of
differences between the previously described clubs. The rejection of all of these claims
is on the basis of Davis, Kobayashi and Muldoon, and it cannot be sustained for the
reasons expressed above with regard to the other similarly rejected claims.
Independent claim 16 recites a set of five clubs comprising the clubs individually
described in claims 22 and 25-28. Claim 16 stands rejected as being unpatentable
over Davis, Kobayashi and Muldoon, applied as against the other claims, taken further
with Cheng, Cook and Eberle. Cheng is cited for teaching that a heavier club has more
impact energy but is more difficult to swing, Cook for disclosing a set of irons whose
shaft lengths differ by 0.5 inches, and Eberle for teaching that the length of a club shaft
is dependent upon the height of a golfer. Be that as it may, the latter three references
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007