Appeal No. 2004-1184
Application No. 10/074,849
one of ordinary skill in this art to use the ionomer of Sullivan
‘105 for the outer cover layer of Nesbitt (id.).
Appellants argue that Sullivan ‘105 is directed to a single
layer cover for a golf ball, while Nesbitt is directed to a multi-
layer golf ball cover, and the examiner has not provided any
motivation for combining these references as proposed (Brief, pages
6-8). Furthermore, appellants argue that the flex modulus taught
by Sullivan ‘105 represents Iotek 7520 alone, while the reference
only teaches cover layers formed from a blend of Iotek 7520 and
another (hard) ionomer (Brief, page 7).
These arguments are not persuasive. The examiner has not
applied Sullivan ‘105 for a teaching of a cover layer to replace
the cover layer of Nesbitt. The examiner cites Sullivan ‘105 for
its teaching that an ionomer with a flex modulus of 2500-3500 psi
was known in this art. Since Nesbitt generically teaches that the
outer cover layer should be of “soft, low flexural modulus resinous
material” (col. 1, ll. 52-53), the examiner has applied Sullivan
‘105 for its teaching that another soft, low flex modulus resinous
material was known in the art as useful in golf ball cover layers.
Accordingly, we determine that the examiner has established that it
would have been prima facie obvious to use an ionomer such as Iotek
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007