Appeal No. 2004-1184
Application No. 10/074,849
affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 46-53 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1-42 of Sullivan ‘894.
B. The Rejection under § 102(b)
The examiner finds that Nesbitt discloses a golf ball
comprising a core, an inner cover layer, and an outer cover layer,
where the inner cover layer is made from a hard, high flexural
modulus resinous material such as SurlynŽ 1605 (Answer, page 3).
The examiner applies Yabuki as evidence that SurlynŽ 1605 has a
Shore D hardness of 62, as well as a flex modulus of 44,961 psi
(Answer, pages 3-5).1 Since the examiner also finds that the inner
cover layer thickness, the outer cover layer thickness, the
coefficient of restitution (COR), and the preferred core material
(polybutadiene) of Nesbitt are the same or overlap with these
variables of the claimed golf ball, the examiner concludes that the
spin factor of the Nesbitt golf ball would inherently be the same
as the claimed golf ball spin factor (Answer, pages 3-6). We
agree.
1The examiner finds that SurlynŽ 1605 is identical to hi-
milan 1605 (Answer, page 4). Appellants do not contest this
finding (see the Brief and the Reply Brief in their entirety).
Appellants also teach that SurlynŽ 1605 is now designated as
SurlynŽ 8940 with a flex modulus of about 51,000 psi
(specification, page 3, ll. 25-29).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007