Appeal No. 2004-0919 Page 12
Application No. 09/842,607
Since all the limitations of claim 25 are disclosed in Saito for the reasons set
forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
The appellants have grouped claims 25, 26 and 29 to 39 as standing or falling
together.5 Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 26 and 29 to 39
fall with claim 25. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 26
and 29 to 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also affirmed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 10, 12, 13, 27 and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In the rejection of claims 1 to 10, 12, 13, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner (answer, p. 4) concluded that "[o]ne skilled in the art would have modified the
golf ball of Saito with the cover of Horiuchi to provide excellent impact resilience and
good flying performance."
5 See page 4 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007