Appeal No. 2004-1954
Application 09/917,539
‘678. The examiner states that Cavallaro ‘678 specifically
teaches “a golf ball that has durability, a low spin rate
and substantial distance more like a conventional two piece
ball, but has a soft feel by using a soft, high specific
gravity mantle layer and a soft core.” The examiner refers
to column 4, lines 33-38 and column 14, lines 31-43 of
Cavallaro ‘678 in this regard. We agree with the examiner
that these teachings of Cavallaro ‘678 support the
examiner’s obviousness rejection. Appellants do not
dispute these teachings of Cavallaro ‘678.
Furthermore, we note that golf ball properties, such
as spin, are result effective variables. See for example,
column 7, lines 29-34 of Cavallaro ‘191. Hence, modifying
the golf ball of Sullivan according to the teachings of
Cavallaro ‘678 to affect properties such as spin and feel
would have been obvious. Absent evidence of secondary
considerations, such as a showing of unexpectedly superior
results, we determine that choosing a known configuration
(adding a mantle layer to the golf ball of Sullivan) for
its known properties, for optimizing particular properties
of a golf ball, would have been prima facie obvious, as
concluded by the examiner. See, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). We need not discuss
the other references of Cavallaro ‘191, Harris, Shama,
Schenk, or Boehm, in making this determination.
Beginning on page 9 of the Brief, appellants also
argue that the combination does not disclose a mantle
comprising a polymeric material having a reinforcing
material dispersed throughout the polymeric material as
claimed in claim 1, component 2. On page 9 of the Answer,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007