Appeal No. 2005-1116 Page 7
Application No. 10/077,148
18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). When the claimed invention is not identically
disclosed in a reference, and instead requires picking and choosing among a number of
different options disclosed by the reference, then the reference does not anticipate.
Thus, the invention must have been known to the art in the detail of the claim; that is, all
of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference,
arranged as in the claim. See Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Gulf Co., 242 F.3d 1376,
1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Akzo N.V. v. International Trade
Commission, 808 F.2d 1471, 1480, 1 USPQ2d 1241, 1245-46 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert.
denied, 107 S.Ct. 2490 (1987); In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-88, 172 USPQ 524, 526
(CCPA 1972).
Yamagishi does not anticipate claims 38 and 53 for the reasons set forth by the
appellants in the brief. The only disclosed golf ball in Yamagishi that has an inner cover
layer made from an ionomer resin is example E4. However, golf ball E4 of Yamagishi
does not disclose the following limitations: (1) a core with a PGA compression of 55 or
less;2 (2) an outer cover layer having a Shore D hardness of about 58 or more;3 (3) the
2Golf ball E4 of Yamagishi has a solid core having a distortion under a load of
100 kg of 3.30 mm. Utilizing the examiner's linear method of conversion as set forth in
the answer, this equates to a PGA compression of about 70.
3Golf ball E4 of Yamagishi has an outer cover layer with a Shore D hardness of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007