Appeal No. 2004-2234
Application No. 09/881,361
As indicated above, independent claims 1, 8 and 16 require
the hosel plug to comprise a compliant polymeric material and to
be sized to fit snugly into the hosel cavity where it is secured
in place by compression of the compliant polymeric material.
Whether read on its face or in light of the underlying
specification,3 this limitation calls for the hosel plug to be
secured in place by virtue of its compliant polymeric material
being in a state of compression. Kochevar contains no suggestion
that the capsule 11 disclosed therein is secured in this manner.
To the contrary, Kochevar teaches that the capsule, by virtue of
its permanently deformable putty-like polyisobutylene weight mass
13, is secured by a mechanical interlock and/or by adhesion.
Thus, even if Shimazaki’s weight 11 were replaced with Kochevar’s
capsule 11 of polyisobutylene and a metal powder, the result
still would not meet the foregoing claim limitations.
The examiner’s additional reliance on Tarlow in this regard
is not well founded. Although the Tarlow insert is secured in
place by a friction fit which is apparently produced by
compression of its flexible polymeric material, the only
3 The appellants’ specification states that “[i]n the plug’s
installed position, the compliant polymeric material is slightly
compressed, to secure the plug in place by an interference fit”
(page 7).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007