Appeal No. 2004-1184
Application No. 10/074,849
The “spin factor” is a complex set of measurements and
calculations using many different golf clubs (see the
specification, pages 45-46). This “spin factor” is not recognized
in any prior art other than some of appellants’ own patents.
Contrary to appellants’ arguments, we determine that the examiner
has provided sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable belief
that the spin factor of the Nesbitt golf ball would have inherently
been the same as the claimed spin factor. See In re Spada, 911
F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657-58 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re
Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). As found
in the Answer, the golf ball of Nesbitt has the same range of
thicknesses for the inner and outer cover, the same materials for
the core, inner and outer covers, with the same flex modulus for
the inner cover, as well as a coefficient of restitution which is
the same as the claimed golf ball.2 Therefore we determine that
2We note that the COR taught by Nesbitt of 0.800 or more
applies to the core and inner layer, while the COR disclosed and
claimed by appellants of at least 0.750 applies to the entire
golf ball (e.g., see claim 53 on appeal). However, appellants
do not dispute or contest the examiner’s finding that the COR of
Nesbitt falls within the scope of COR values disclosed and taught
by appellants. Furthermore, Nesbitt teaches that the COR of the
entire golf ball must be “comparatively high” so that the ball
closely approaches the maximum permitted initial velocity
specified by the USGA (col. 3, ll. 8-15). Accordingly, for
purposes of this appeal, we accept the examiner’s finding as fact
(continued...)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007