Appeal No. 2004-1235
Application No. 09/845,643
one indentation positioned adjacent to said circular recessed
cavity” as required by claims 4 and 15.
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies on the
disclosure of Kennedy. See the final Office action dated May 14,
2003, pages 2 and 3. The examiner finds, and the appellant does
not dispute, that “Kennedy reveals a golf mark retaining device
including a recess (16) and an indentation (60) for assisting in
grasping the ball marker.” Compare the final Office action dated
May 14, 2003, page 3, with the Brief in its entirety.
Although Giglio also discloses a feature for “assisting in
grasping the ball marker,” we concur with the examiner that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use either
golf ball marker removing feature in Giglio’s caddy, motivated by
a reasonable expectation of successfully facilitating the removal
of the golf ball marker from the circular recessed cavity
therein.
It follows that the combined teachings of Giglio and Kennedy
would have rendered the subject matter of claims 4, 5 and 15
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art withing the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 4, 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007