Appeal No. 2005-1119
Application No. 10/074,665
factor” is not recognized in any prior art other than some of
appellants’ own patents. Contrary to appellants’ arguments, we
determine that the examiner has provided sufficient evidence to
establish a reasonable belief that the spin factor of the Nesbitt
golf ball would have inherently been the same as the claimed golf
ball’s spin factor. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15
USPQ2d 1655, 1657-58 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Best, 562 F.2d
1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). As found by the
examiner in the Answer (pages 3-4 and 7), the golf ball of
Nesbitt has the same range of thicknesses for the inner and outer
cover, the same materials for the core, inner and outer cover
layers, with the same flex modulus for the inner cover layer, as
well as a coefficient of restitution which is the same as the
claimed golf ball.5 Therefore we determine that the examiner has
5
5We note that the COR taught by Nesbitt of 0.800 or more
applies to the core and inner layer, while the COR disclosed and
claimed by appellants of at least 0.750 applies to the entire
golf ball (e.g., see claim 53 on appeal). However, appellants do
not dispute or contest the examiner’s finding that the COR of the
Nesbitt golf ball falls within the scope of COR values disclosed
and claimed by appellants. Furthermore, Nesbitt teaches that the
COR of the entire golf ball must be “comparatively high” so that
the ball closely approaches the maximum permitted initial
velocity specified by the USGA (col. 3, ll. 8-15). Accordingly,
for purposes of this appeal, we accept the examiner’s finding as
fact that the COR of the Nesbitt golf ball falls within the range
of COR values of appellants’ claimed golf ball.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007