Appeal No. 2005-1119
Application No. 10/074,665
met the initial burden of proof and shifted this burden to
appellants. See In re Spada, supra; In re Best, supra. We note
that appellants have not relied on any evidence to attempt to
establish that the golf ball of Nesbitt does not possess the spin
factor as recited in claim 46 on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a reasonable belief
that all of the claimed limitations are described or inherent in
Nesbitt. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 46-50,
52 and 53 under section 102(b) over Nesbitt.
C. The Rejection under § 103(a)
The examiner applies Nesbitt for the findings as discussed
above and in the Answer (Answer, pages 3-4). The examiner
recognizes that the flex modulus of the exemplified outer cover
layer of Nesbitt is above the range recited in claim 51 on appeal
(Answer, page 4; see also the specification, page 4, ll. 1-3).
The examiner finds that Sullivan teaches an ionomer used for a
golf ball cover layer having a flex modulus of 2500 to 3500 psi
(Answer, page 4). From these findings, the examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007