Appeal No. 2005-2393
Application No. 10/228,392
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
examiner’s Section 103 rejections are well founded. Accordingly,
we affirm the examiner’s Section 103 rejections. Our reasons for
this determination follow.
We observe that the appellants do not dispute the examiner’s
finding at page 4 of the Answer that:
Dillard discloses a [golf] club having [a shaft defined
by]... a metal tip section and a composite butt
section...[wherein the] metallic material ...[has] a
higher strength and higher resistance to torque than a
composite material ...
As argued by the appellants (e.g., the Brief, page 9), Dillard
does not mention a set of golf club shafts progressively
increasing in length, (1) with metal tip section lengths of the
shafts decreasing as overall shaft lengths are increased as
required by claims 1, 10 and 193; and (2) with club heads
progressively decreasing in loft (angle) as the lengths of metal
tip sections are decreased as required by claim 10.
3 Independent Claims 1 and 10 further recite ratios of the
decreased metal tip sections to the increased overall lengths of
the shafts.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007