Appeal No. 2005-1119
Application No. 10/074,665
art to employ the ionomer of Sullivan as the soft, low flex
modulus resinous material of the outer cover layer of Nesbitt
(id.).
Appellants argue that Sullivan is directed to a single layer
cover for a golf ball, while Nesbitt is directed to a multi-layer
golf ball cover, and the examiner has not provided any motivation
for combining these references as proposed (Brief, page 8).
Furthermore, appellants argue that the flex modulus taught by
Sullivan represents Iotek 7520 resin alone, while the reference
only teaches cover layers formed from a blend of Iotek 7520 and
another (hard) ionomer (Brief, pages 7-8). Appellants note that
the Shore D hardness of the blend taught by Sullivan is greater
than the claimed Shore D hardness (Brief, page 8).
These arguments are not persuasive. The examiner has not
applied Sullivan for a teaching of a cover layer to replace the
cover layer of Nesbitt. The examiner applies Sullivan for its
teaching that an ionomer with a flex modulus of 2500-3500 psi was
known in this art (Answer, pages 7-8). Since Nesbitt generically
teaches that the outer cover layer should be formed of “soft, low
flexural modulus resinous material” (col. 1, ll. 52-53), the
examiner has applied Sullivan for its teaching that another soft,
low flex modulus resinous material was known in the art as useful
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007