Appeal No. 2005-1119
Application No. 10/074,665
in golf ball cover layers. Accordingly, we determine that the
examiner has established that it would have been prima facie
obvious to use an ionomer such as Iotek 7520 to meet the
requirements of the outer cover layer of the Nesbitt golf ball.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer,
we determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness in view of the reference evidence which has not
been rebutted by appellants’ arguments. Based on the totality of
the record, we determine that the preponderance of evidence
weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the meaning of
section 103(a). Therefore we affirm the rejection of claim 51
under section 103(a) over Nesbitt in view of Sullivan.
D. Summary
The rejection of claims 46-53 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-42 of
Sullivan ‘894 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 46-50, 52 and 53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Nesbitt is affirmed. The rejection of claim 51
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nesbitt in view of Sullivan is
affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007