Appeal No. 2005-0765 5
Application No. 09/844,989
club face loft angle for correction of mishit balls. While Turner does use loft as a
corrective for mishit putts, the loft angle is not smoothly variable across the putter face.
Turner shows three discrete areas, one with negative loft, one with positive loft and one
with no loft. If the loft angles of Turner were combined on the club of Stuff, no
continuously variable loft face would result. Finally, MacKeil actually teaches away from
using his club face with its loft angles on a putter. In two separate locations in Column
1, MacKeil states that his invention is not applicable to a putter. One of ordinary skill
following the express teaching of MacKeil would not combine MacKeil’s features with
the putters of Stuff or Turner.
The other applied references do not provide evidence that ameliorates the
shortcomings enumerated above. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-22 are
reversed.
REMAND
Regarding claims 17-22, the application on appeal is hereby remanded to the
examiner for consideration of the combined teachings of MacKeil and Werner. Unlike
claims 1-16, these claims are not directed to a putter only, and the teachings of MacKeil
with regard to club face geometry appear to be applicable to a club with a non-metallic
insert of laminate layers as disclosed by Werner. Note that Werner, for the reasons of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007