Ex Parte Kennedy et al - Page 1



          The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not          
          written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.          
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                 Ex parte  THOMAS J. KENNEDY III, MICHAEL J. TZIVANIS,                
                 VIKTOR KELLER, WILLIAM M. RISEN JR., MARK L. BINETTE,                
                                 and JOHN L. NEALON                                   
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 2005-1119                                 
                              Application No. 10/074,665                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before WALTZ, TIMM, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent             
          Judges.                                                                     
          WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         

               DECISION ON APPEAL                                                     
               This is a decision on an appeal from the primary examiner’s            
          final rejection of claims 46 through 53.  The remaining claims in           
          this application are claims 27 through 45, which stand withdrawn            
          from consideration by the examiner as drawn to a non-elected                
          invention (Brief, page 2, ķIII).  We have jurisdiction pursuant             
          to 35 U.S.C. § 134.                                                         
               According to appellants, the invention is directed to a golf           
          ball comprising a core, an inner cover layer which has a Shore D            
          hardness of at least 60 and is formed from a specified material,            




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007