Appeal No. 2004-0240
Application No. 09/730,867
as a “recess in a surface.” (Answer, p. 8). The Examiner
determined that the terms are interchangeable and teachings of
Miller are pertinent to the subject matter of the claimed
invention. (Id.). Appellant has failed to refute the Examiner’s
determinations. (Note, Reply Brief). Appellant also has not
argued that Miller’s undercut recess is not sufficient to reduce
drag and increase the distance the ball will travel when struck.
The present record indicates that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have also recognized, based on the teachings of
Miller, that the inclusion of spangles in the recesses of a golf
ball would provide better visibility of the ball when hidden in
the grass. (See Miller, page 1, lines 12-15). A person of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that dimples
function to effect the flight distance of golf balls. (See
Hotchkiss and the prior art cited in the specification, page 2).
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the shape of the dimple effects the golf ball
flight and aerodynamic performance. (See Hotchkiss and the prior
art cited in the specification, page 2). A person of ordinary
skill in this art would have reasonably expected that the use of
a spangle shaped and arranged in a dimple, as described in the
prior art, would each produce the same effect as when used
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007