Appeal No. 2004-0285 Page 3
Application No. 08/989,320
According to the appellant, this had the disadvantage of placing two discrete materials
adjacent to one another, which caused problems due to differing coefficients of
expansion, poor adhesion, and unpredictable transfer of forces at the interface of the
two materials. The appellant’s invention provides a composite golf club putter head
wherein metal is blended into a plastic base to form a composite material, which
purportedly overcomes the problems present in the prior art putters. See specification,
pages 1-3.
The invention is expressed in claim 10, the sole independent claim, in the
following manner:
A putter head with a striking face, comprising:
a body made from a uniformly blended composition of
plastic and metal, with the metal being all powder prior to
being uniformly blended with the plastic, the metal powder
being between fifty and ninety-five percent by weight of the
uniformly blended composition, and the striking face of the
finished putter having a minimum hardness of Shore A85.
The examiner has rejected this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
in view of the teachings of Bulla. In arriving at this conclusion the examiner has found
Bulla teaches mixing metal powder with plastic, and asserts that uniform mixing of
these ingredients is inherent in the disclosure. The examiner further asserts Bulla
discloses that the metal filler in the club varies from 25% to as much as 75%, which
overlaps the appellant’s claimed range, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that this teaching is applicable to putter heads as well as the other
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007