Appeal No. 2004-0240
Application No. 09/730,867
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).” (Id.).
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure
of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not
necessary that the inventions of the references be physically
combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and
In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973)
(“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an
ability to combine their specific structures.”) As stated above,
a person of ordinary skill in this art who wanted to achieve the
advantages of improvement in flight distance of golf balls,
improved visibility and security of the spangle would have been
motivated to incorporate a spangle in at least one undercut
recess of a conventional golf ball.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007