Appeal No. 2004-0240
Application No. 09/730,867
be more easily seen” (answer, page 5 as well as page 7). Like
the Appellant, however we do not believe Miller would have
suggested such a modification.
This is because Miller contains no teaching or suggestion of
golf ball recesses which have “concave bottoms” or of golf ball
recesses which are associated with “concave . . . spangles”
(id.).
In the Miller golf ball, the recesses 2 and the
corresponding spangles 4 are convex, like the outer surface of
the ball 1, rather than concave (e.g., see figure 3 and the
disclosure relating thereto). Moreover, it is significant that
the Examiner has failed to explain why the convex recesses and
spangles of Miller would have suggested providing concave
recesses with concave spangles. This failure by the Examiner is
particularly significant since the above discussed deficiencies
of Miller were expressly argued by the Appellant (e.g., see the
last two sentences in the last full paragraph on page 5 of the
brief).
On the record before us, it is only the Appellant’s own
disclosure which teaches any reason for providing a concave
recess or dimple with an undercut portion as required by the
claims on appeal. For this reason and in light of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007