Appeal No. 2004-1399
Application No. 09/777,595
We have considered the appellant’s specification and claims,
the applied prior art, and the positions of the examiner and the
appellant. We conclude that the prior art teaching is sufficient
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the invention defined by Claims 1-27. Appellant has
presented no objective evidence of nonobviousness. Accordingly,
we affirm the examiner’s final rejection.
Discussion
“The PTO has the burden under section 103 to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Claims 1 and 10 are
directed to a golf ball comprising a core and a cover. The cover
has an outermost layer with a thickness of less than .040 inches
and a minimum Shore D hardness of “about 56.” The outermost
layer is at least as hard as a layer between the core and
outermost layer.
Saito, Cavallaro I, and Cavallaro II have been cited as
evidence that appellant’s claimed invention would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
application was filed. Saito would have taught persons skilled
in the art to make and use a golf ball comprising (1) a core and
(2) a thermoplastic cover that includes at least one layer with
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007