Ex Parte Fushihara - Page 2



                   Appeal No. 2006-2068                                                                                             
                   Application No. 09/854,693                                                                                       

                                  the golf ball has a specific gravity of not less than 0.5 and less than 1.0,                      
                           and a deformation amount (D) of 3.0 to 6.0 mm when applying from an initial                              
                           load of 98 N to a final load of 1275 N, and                                                              
                                  a ratio (F/D) of the flexural modulus of the cover (F) to the deformation                         
                           amount of the golf ball (D) is within the range of 24 to 31.                                             
                                                      THE REFERENCE                                                                 
                       The reference relied upon by the examiner is:                                                                

                       Yoshimasa et al.  (Yoshimasa)  JP 06-327791  Nov. 29, 1994                                                   



                                                 THE REJECTION AT ISSUE                                                             

                           Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                                 
                   Yoshimasa.  The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 2 and 3 of the Answer.                                
                   Throughout the opinion we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective                         
                   details thereof.                                                                                                 

                                                                OPINION                                                             

                           We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced                        
                   by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support                           
                   for the rejection.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching                        
                   our decision, appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s                            
                   rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s                      
                   answer.                                                                                                          
                           With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the                                 
                   examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, for the reasons                            
                   stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §                           
                   103.                                                                                                             


                                                                 2                                                                  



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007