Appeal No. 2005-0806 Page 13
Application No. 10/179,812
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 to 13
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nesbitt in view of Horiuchi and Sullivan. With respect to claims 1 to 5
and 9 to 13, the rejection is sustained for the reasons set forth above.10
Claim 6 reads as follows:
A golf ball according to claim 1 wherein the outer layer comprises a low
flexural modulus ionomer resin which includes a blend of a hard high modulus
ionomer with a soft low modulus ionomer.
Based on our analysis and review of Nesbitt and claim 6, 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;
and (2) the outer layer comprising a blend of a hard high modulus ionomer with a soft
low modulus ionomer as recited in claim 6.
Sullivan's invention relates to golf ball technology, and more particularly, golf ball
cover technology. Sullivan teaches that ionomers have been widely used as golf ball
cover materials for the past 15 years and that while these ionomers are very durable,
10 Thus, we regard the examiner's application of the teachings of Sullivan to be mere surplusage
with regard to the rejection of these claims.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007