Appeal No. 2004-0285 Page 6
Application No. 08/989,320
decision. Since a putter is a specialized club which is not used to drive the ball, it would
have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that Bulla’s disclosure concerning the
application of a shock wave to the ball to provide maximum striking force (column 1,
lines 50-56) would not be a consideration in the design of a putter. Nor do we believe
one of ordinary skill in the art would regard Bulla’s disclosure concerning the
relationship of the amount of metal filler to the slope of the club face as being
applicable to a putter, for the putter is not included in Bulla’s discussion of face angles,
but is presented as a separate item. What Bulla does teach with regard to the putter is
that it should have a “feel” (i.e., a weight of swing) corresponding to that of the other
clubs (column 3, lines 45-49), which in our view would have taught one of ordinary skill
in the art to provide for the putter a weight of powder in the mixture that falls within
Bulla’s disclosed range of 25-75 percent, disregarding, because it is a putter, the
proviso that the weight of metal be increased as the angle of the slope of the club face
increases. We find no basis in the Bulla disclosure for the appellant’s argument that
the reference teaches that the putter must have a weight of swing that matches the rest
of the clubs (Brief, page 10), and that the weight of metal in the filler should be
determined by measuring the shaft length of the other clubs (Brief, page 11), in view of
the fact that Bulla treats the putter separately (column 3, lines 45-49).
With regard to the declaration filed by the appellant (Paper No. 17), we repeat
the position we took in the prior decision, which is that the evidence does not compare
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007