Appeal No. 2004-1225
Application No. 09/840,312
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Isaac 4,770,422 Sep. 13, 1988
Wu 6,392,002 May 21, 2002
Claims 1-3, 6-16, 19-29 and 32-39 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Wu.
Claims 4, 5, 17, 18, 30, and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu in view of
Isaac.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. §102(e) Rejection1
In this rejection, we consider claims 1, 14, and 27.
On page 6 of the brief, appellants argue that Wu does not
disclose a golf ball comprising a core, and a multiple layer
cover wherein both cover layers comprise a polyurethane and have
a Shore D hardness of less than 60. Claim 1 requires that the
first cover layer exhibits a Shore D hardness of less than 60 and
that the second outermost cover layer exhibits a Shore D hardness
of less than 60. Claim 14 also requires a Shore hardness of less
than 60 for the first cover layer and second outermost cover
layer. Claim 27 also requires that each of the layers exhibits a
Shore D hardness of less than 60.
Appellants state that Wu teaches “ . . . at least one of the
layers is formed from a polyurethane composition . . “. Brief,
1 Wu has a U.S. filing date of Dec. 3, 1999. Appellants have not
contested Wu on the issue of qualifying prior art under §102(e).
Hence, we treat Wu as qualifying prior art.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007