Appeal No. 2004-1954
Application 09/917,539
Claims 1 through 6 and 8 through 18 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan
in view of Cavallaro ‘191 and Cavallaro ‘678 and Harris.
Claims 7 and 19 through 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan in view
of Cavallaro ‘191 and Cavallaro ‘678 and Harris, and
further in view of Shama and Schenk and Boehm.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the Examiner’s Answer
and appellants’ Brief and Reply Brief, and the applied
references. This review has led us to conclude that each
of the rejections is well founded.
Beginning on page 6 of the Brief, appellants argue
that there is no suggestion in Cavallaro ‘191 or Sullivan
to motivate one skilled in the art to add a mantle to the
golf ball of Sullivan. Appellants argue that one skilled
in the art would not have been motivated to add a mantle
layer to the golf ball of Sullivan, because Sullivan
specifically teaches a two piece golf ball having a large
core and a larger, thicker cover, and it is the combination
of the soft core and the thicker cover that provides the
good feel and lower spin in Sullivan. On page 3 of the
Reply Brief, appellants further argue that Sullivan is
directed to decreasing the spin rate, whereas Cavallaro
‘191 is directed to an increase in spin rate.
On page 7 of the Answer, the examiner rebuts and
states that Cavallaro ‘678 teaches that the incorporation
of a soft mantle layer overcomes the conventional two piece
hard feel and refers to column 4, lines 28-60 of Cavallaro
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007