Appeal No. 2005-0806 Page 9
Application No. 10/179,812
After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Nesbitt and claims 1, 9 and 10, it is our
opinion that the differences are: (1) the inner cover layer comprising a high acid ionomer
including at least 16% by weight of alpha, beta-unsaturated carboxylic acid as recited in
claim 1; (2) the inner cover layer comprising an ionomeric resin including at least 16%
by weight of an alpha, beta-unsaturated carboxylic acid and having a modulus of from
about 15,000 to about 70,000 psi as recited in claim 9; and (3) the inner cover layer
comprising an ionomeric resin including about 17% to about 25% by weight of an alpha,
beta-unsaturated carboxylic acid and having a modulus of from about 15,000 to about
70,000 psi as recited in claim 10.
In applying the test for obviousness,8 we reach the conclusion that it would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to have modified the resinous material used for the inner cover of Nesbitt's golf ball to
8 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007