Ex Parte Sullivan - Page 2




               Appeal No. 2004-0242                                                                          Page 2                  
               Application No. 09/873,594                                                                                            


                                                         BACKGROUND                                                                  
                       The appellant's invention relates to golf balls and, more particularly, to improved                           
               standard and oversized golf balls comprising multi-layer covers which have a                                          
               comparatively hard inner layer and a relatively soft outer layer such as that produced by                             
               the use of a polyurethane based outer layer.  The improved multi-layer golf balls                                     
               provide for enhanced distance and durability properties over single layer cover golf balls                            
               while at the same time offering enhanced "feel" and spin characteristics generally                                    
               associated with soft balata and balata-like covers of the prior art (specification, p. 1).  A                         
               copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.                                


                       The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                               
               appealed claims are:                                                                                                  
               Nesbitt                                4,431,193                              Feb. 14, 1984                           
               Wu                                     5,334,673                              Aug. 2, 1994                            



                       Claims 1, 4 to 7, 10 to 13 and 16 to 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                               
               being unpatentable over Nesbitt in view of Wu.                                                                        


                       Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                                 
               the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer                                   








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007