Appeal No. 2004-0240
Application No. 09/730,867
individually and would supplement each other.1 “For obviousness
under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904, 7 USPQ2d 1673,
1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in this
art who wanted to achieve the advantages of improvement in flight
distance of golf balls and improved visibility would have been
motivated to incorporate spangles in at least one of the recesses
of a conventional golf ball.
Miller discloses that an undercut area in the recesses
prevents the spangles from being loosened at their edges. (Pg. 1,
ll. 58-61). Thus, the idea of using an undercut area in the a
dimple of a conventional golf ball to secure the spangle would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art who
wanted to achieve the advantages of a golf ball having
improvement in flight distance, improved visibility and security
of the spangle.
It is the position of the majority that Miller does not
teach or suggest a golf ball having recesses which have concave
bottoms or golf ball recesses which are associated with concave
spangles. (Slip Op., page 4). Further the majority states “[i]n
1Miller, page 1 lines 56-57, recognizes the suitability of
the spangle taking the shape of the recess.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007