Appeal No. 2004-1225
Application No. 09/840,312
147 USPQ 518, 523 (CCPA 1965). Because appellants do not provide
such evidence showing that the polyurethane layers of Wu do not
each possess a Shore D hardness of less than 60, we agree with
the examiner’s conclusion in this rejection.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§102(e) rejection.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
On pages 7-8 of the brief, appellants do argue the
limitations of the dependent claims with regard to the PGA
compression values of the core. Hence, to the extent the
patentability of these claims are argued, we do consider them.
We refer to our determinations made with regard to Wu,
discussed above, and add the following additional comments.
Appellants argue that Isaac discloses a golf ball having a
core and a cover, and the golf balls, not the cores, have a PGA
compression of 50-110. Appellants also argue that Isaac does not
specifically disclose a golf ball core having a PGA compression
of no more than 85, nor does Isaac recognize the benefit of a
golf ball having a core PGA compression of no more than 85.
Appellants additionally argue that there is no motivation to
combine Wu and Isaac. Appellants state that one skilled in the
art would not be motivated to combine a two-piece solid golf ball
with a golf ball comprising a center, a cover, an optionally an
intermediate layer, wherein the golf ball disclosed is a wound
golf ball. Brief, pages 6-8.
On page 7 of the answer, the examiner’s rebuttal is that one
of ordinary skill in the art would know that many golf ball cores
are made from soft materials, while the outer layers are made
from harder materials that increase the PGA compression for the
entire golf ball to the recommended range. The examiner states
that since the recommended PGA compression for a complete golf
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007