Appeal No. 2005-1815
Application No. 10/057,719
While Browne does disclose a one-piece, seamless collar that
is easy to install, the combined teachings of Boyd and Browne do
not corroborate the examiner’s implication that the liner of Boyd
is difficult to install or that the collar of Brown is easier to
install. Further, these prior art devices serve different
purposes: one (Boyd) lines a golf hole cup and provides a highly
visible and easily renewable (by cleaning) indication of a golf
hole and the other (Browne) lines the portion of the hole above
the cup and reinforces the bare earth, provides a moisture
barrier and keeps the edge of the hole sharp and well defined,
while also enhancing the visibility of the hole. At most, the
combined teachings of Boyd and Browne would have suggested
pairing the golf hole cup liner of Boyd with the bare hole collar
of Browne, which would not result in the subject matter recited
in independent claims 1, 22, 25 and 29.
Hence, as applied by the examiner, the combination of Boyd
and Browne fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter recited in claims 1, 22, 25
and 29, and dependent claims 9, 11, 12 and 27.1 Therefore, we
1 As a result, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the
appellant’s declaration evidence of non-obviousness.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007