Ex Parte Sullivan et al - Page 2




               Appeal No. 2005-1116                                                                          Page 2                  
               Application No. 10/077,148                                                                                            



                                                         BACKGROUND                                                                  
                       The appellants' invention relates to golf balls having a soft core (specification, p.                         
               1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants'                                
               brief.                                                                                                                


                       Claims 38 to 42, 44 to 49 and 51 to 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)                                
               as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over                              
               U.S. Patent No. 5,779,563 to Yamagishi et al. (Yamagishi).                                                            


                       Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                                 
               the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer                                   
               (mailed November 15, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the                                    
               rejection, and to the brief (filed August 20, 2004) for the appellants' arguments                                     
               thereagainst.                                                                                                         


                                                            OPINION                                                                  
                       In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                               
               the appellants' specification and claims, to the Yamagishi patent, and to the respective                              
               positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of our                                    
               review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                                      







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007