Appeal No. 2004-0240
Application No. 09/730,867
travel when struck. This appealed subject matter is adequately
illustrated by independent claim 1 which reads as follows:
1. A dimple arranged in a spherical surface of a golf
ball, comprising an outer edge defining a geometric
configuration at the intersection with the spherical surface
and a concavity in the ball surface, the diameter of the
outer edge being less than the diameter of a portion of said
concavity beneath said outer edge, thereby to define an
undercut portion of the dimple beneath the surface of the
golf ball, said undercut portion increasing the turbulence
at the golf ball surface to reduce drag and increase the
distance the ball will travel when struck.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
Examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Miller 1,795,732 Mar. 10, 1931
Oka et al. (Oka) 5,174,578 Dec. 29, 1992
Hotchkiss, 500 Years of Golf Balls: History & Collector’s Guide,
pp. 78-80, 115-23 (Antique Trader Books, 1997).
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Miller. According to the
Examiner, “it would have been obvious, in view of Miller, to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to modify the recesses of a conventional golf ball having
concave bottoms so as to be undercut enough to permit the entry
of concave, shiny, colored spangles to enable the ball to be more
easily seen” (answer, page 5).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007