Appeal No. 2004-0240
Application No. 09/730,867
a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to incorporate a spangle in at least one of the
recesses of a conventional golf ball to enable the ball to be
more easily seen. Specifically, the Examiner determined that a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to use a concave spangle to fill a concave recess of a
conventional golf ball. (Answer, pages 5 and 7).
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of Hotchkiss and Miller and these references do not
encompass, teach or suggest the claimed invention. Specifically,
Appellant states “the most striking difference is the
characterizing feature of the claims, namely an undercut dimple.
In the claimed invention, the dimple is a ‘concavity in the ball
surface’ and the undercut portion is defined by the diameter of
the concavity being greater than the diameter of the outer edge
of the dimple. Hotchkiss does not disclose undercut dimples and
Miller does not disclose any dimples whatsoever. Moreover,
Miller’s ‘recesses’ are not concavities. In fact, spangles which
are arranged in Miller’s recesses have a convex outer surface.”
(Brief, p. 5).
The Examiner provides a dictionary definition for a dimple
as a “depression or indentation on a surface” and an indentation
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007