Appeal No. 2005-1119
Application No. 10/074,665
finds that the inner cover layer thickness, the outer cover layer
thickness, the coefficient of restitution (COR), and the flexural
modulus of the inner cover layer of the materials taught by
Nesbitt are the same or overlap with these variables of the
claimed golf ball, the examiner concludes that the spin factor of
the Nesbitt golf ball would inherently be the same as the claimed
golf ball spin factor (Answer, pages 3-4). We agree.
Appellants argue that Nesbitt does not disclose or claim the
specific Shore D hardness of the inner or outer cover layers
(Brief, page 5). Appellants are correct that Nesbitt does not
disclose or claim any specific Shore D hardness of the inner or
outer cover layers. However, appellants have not disputed the
examiner’s finding from Yabuki that the exemplified inner cover
layer of Nesbitt (SurlynŽ 1605) has a Shore D hardness of 62,
which is within the scope of claim 46 (which recites an inner
cover layer with a Shore D hardness of “at least 60").
Additionally, appellants have not disputed the examiner’s finding
from Yabuki that the exemplified outer cover layer of Nesbitt
(SurlynŽ 1855) has a Shore D hardness of 55, which is within the
scope of claim 46 (which recites an outer cover layer having a
4(...continued)
and appellants do not contest or dispute this finding.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007