Appeal No. 2005-1119
Application No. 10/074,665
“other issues” have been resolved (Brief, page 3, ¶VI).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the examiner’s rejection of
claims 46-53 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-42 of Sullivan
‘894.
B. The Rejection under § 102(b)
The examiner finds that Nesbitt discloses a golf ball
comprising a core, an inner cover layer, and an outer cover
layer, where the inner cover layer is made from a hard, high
flexural modulus resinous material such as Surlyn® 1605 (Answer,
page 3). The examiner applies Yabuki as evidence that Surlyn®
1605 has a Shore D hardness of 62 (Answer, pages 3 and 5).3 The
examiner further finds that Nesbitt discloses an outer cover
layer made from a soft, low flexural modulus resinous material
such as Surlyn® 1855, which has a Shore D hardness of 55 as
taught by Yabuki (Answer, page 3).4 Since the examiner also
3
3It is well known that Surlyn® 1605 is identical or
equivalent to hi-milan 1605 (trade name)(see Yabuki, col. 11, ll.
53-57)(see the decision in Appeal No. 2004-1184, Paper No. 20,
footnote 1). We note that appellants do not contest or dispute
any of the examiner’s findings from Yabuki (see the Brief in its
entirety).
4
4Again we note that the examiner equates hi-milan 1855
(trade name) with Surlyn® 1855 (see Yabuki, col. 11, ll. 63-67),
(continued...)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007