Appeal No. 2002-1488
Application No. 09/463,695
diameter, span, and length of these shelled objects without
additional cost or complicated manufacturing processes.
[Answer, page 4.]
Based on these determinations, the examiner concludes that “the teachings of Knapp
are . . . analogous to the teachings of Allen” (answer, page 4) and that it would have
been obvious to modify Allen by substituting a PCCP structure for the honeycomb
design of Allen, “the motivation being to simply take advantage of another commonly
used method for overcoming size limitations associated with routinely used forging and
casting techniques in an effort to increase the dimensions of a shell structure while
maintaining structural integrity” (answer, pages 4-5).
After having reviewed both Allen and Knapp, we must agree with the arguments
presented by appellants on pages 8-15 of their brief that there is no teaching,
suggestion or incentive in either reference which would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellants’ invention to modify the golf club head of Allen in the
manner proposed by the examiner to arrive at the subject matter of claim 11. In this
regard, we are in accord with appellants that the examiner has failed to identify a basis
why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been realistically motivated to
substitute the PCCP structure of Knapp for the honeycomb design of Allen, especially
when considering that Knapp’s objective is to facilitate the construction of large scale
structures such as petroleum storage facilities, orbiting space stations and undersea
nuclear reactor housings. Given the disparate natures of the devices disclosed by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007