Appeal No. 2004-1184
Application No. 10/074,849
7520 which meets the requirements of the outer cover layer of the
Nesbitt golf ball.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer,
we determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Accordingly, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 51 under section 103(a).
D. Summary
The rejection of claims 46-53 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-42 of
Sullivan ‘894 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 46-50, 52 and 53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Nesbitt is affirmed. The rejection of claim 51
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nesbitt in view of Sullivan ‘105
is affirmed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007