Appeal No. 2005-0806 Page 16
Application No. 10/179,812
a blend of a hard high modulus ionomer with a soft low modulus ionomer as suggested
by the teachings of Sullivan to improve the impact resilience of the outer cover and thus
increase the coefficient of restitution of the golf ball while maintaining the ability of a
skilled golfer to impart adequate back spin to the golf ball.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 11) that (1) Sullivan does not remedy the
previously discussed deficiencies of Nesbitt and Horiuchi; and (2) there is no motivation
to combine Sullivan with Nesbitt and Horiuchi to arrive at the golf ball of claim 6. These
arguments are unpersuasive for the following two reasons. First, as explained
previously we see no deficiency in the teachings of Nesbitt and Horiuchi with respect to
claim 1 on appeal. Second, we believe there is motivation in the applied prior art, taken
as a whole, that would have suggested the limitations set forth in claim 6 for the reasons
set forth in the previous paragraph.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nesbitt in view of Horiuchi and
Sullivan is affirmed. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed since the appellant has not challenged the rejection of
these claims with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing claims 7 and 8 to fall with
claim 6 (see In re Nielson, supra).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007