Appeal No. 2004-1954
Application 09/917,539
the examiner rebuts and states that he agrees that
Cavallaro ‘191 is silent with respect to adding a
reinforcing material in the polymeric material. However,
the examiner correctly points out that Cavallaro ‘678
explicitly teaches that the addition of fillers or
reinforcing materials to the mantle and cover layers of a
golf ball will improve the moment of inertia and lower the
spin rate and the examiner refers to column 14, lines 31-44
of Cavallaro ‘678. The examiner correctly concludes that
it would have been obvious in view of Cavallaro ‘678 to
have provided a mantle layer with reinforcing materials
throughout the polymeric material in order to improve the
moment of inertia and lower the spin rate should a lower
spin rate be desired. We agree.
On page 7 of the Brief, appellants also argue that the
combination of Sullivan or Cavallaro ‘191 does not teach a
core having a core component and a mantle layer wherein the
combined core component and mantle layer has a Riehle
compression of at least 75. Appellants argue that Sullivan
teaches a Riehle compression of about 75 to 115. Appel-
lants argue that if a mantle layer was added to Sullivan,
the core mantle layer combination would not necessarily
have a Riehle compression of at least 75.
Claim 1 recites that the core has a Riehle compression
of at least about 75. Appellants’ specification also
indicates that the core (no mantle layer included) has a
Riehle compression of about 75 or more. See page 13, lines
15-20 of appellants’ specification. Also, column 3, at
lines 22-24 of Cavallaro ‘678, indicates that the core and
mantle layers each have respective values, such as Shore D
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007