Appeal No. 2004-1184
Application No. 10/074,849
the examiner has met the initial burden of proof and shifted this
burden to appellants. See In re Spada, supra; In re Best, supra.
We note that appellants have not relied on any evidence to attempt
to establish that the golf ball of Nesbitt does not possess the
spin factor as recited in claim 46 on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a reasonable belief
that all of the claimed limitations are described or inherent in
Nesbitt. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection based on section
102(b).
C. The Rejection under § 103(a)
The examiner applies Nesbitt for the findings as discussed
above and in the Answer (Answer, page 3). The examiner recognizes
that the flex modulus of the outer cover layer of Nesbitt is above
the claimed range (Answer, sentence bridging pages 3-4; see also
the specification, page 4, ll. 1-3). The examiner finds that
Sullivan ‘105 teaches an ionomer for a golf ball cover layer with a
flex modulus of 2500 to 3500 psi (Answer, page 4). From these
findings, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
2(...continued)
that the COR of the Nesbitt golf ball falls within the range of
COR values of appellants’ claimed golf ball.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007