Appeal No. 2004-0285 Page 7
Application No. 08/989,320
the claimed invention to the closest prior art, that is, the Bulla putter, and therefore it
does not establish that the claimed 50-95% range of metal filler achieves unexpected
results relative to Bulla.
While we have carefully considered all of the arguments put forth by the
appellant in the Brief and the Reply Brief, they have not convinced us that Bulla fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
claim 10. This being the case, we shall sustain the standing rejection of claim 10.
Furthermore, inasmuch as the appellant has chosen not to challenge with any
reasonable specificity before this Board the rejection of dependent claims 12, 22-24,
26, 30 and 31, they are grouped with independent claim 10, from which they depend,
and fall therewith. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and Section 1206 of the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure.
CONCLUSION
The rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007