Appeal No. 2004-0240
Application No. 09/730,867
Claims 5-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oka in view of Hotchkiss and Miller. The
Examiner concludes that “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 recess of a golf ball such as
that of Oka . . . having concave bottoms so as to be undercut
enough to permit the entry of concave spangles to enable the ball
to be more easily seen” (answer, page 7).
A more complete exposition of the Examiner’s viewpoint as
well as the opposing position expressed by the Appellant are set
forth in the answer as well as the brief and reply brief.
OPINION
We cannot sustain either of the above noted rejections.
We share the Appellant’s fundamental viewpoint that the
applied references contain no teaching or suggestion for
combining them in the manner proposed by the Examiner. With
respect to each of the rejections before us, the Examiner
concludes that “it would have been obvious, in view of Miller,
. . . to modify the recesses of . . . [the Hotchkiss or the Oka]
golf ball having concave bottoms so as to be undercut enough to
permit the entry of concave . . . spangles to enable the ball to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007