Appeal Number: 2006-1938
Application Number: 10/823,886
unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. On appeal to the
Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting
the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness. Id. (citing Rouffett, 149 F.3d at 1355, 47
USPQ2d at 1456).
Analysis
Appellant argues that since Kawamatsu teaches increased
backspin for the higher numbered clubs, it teaches away from a
combination with Kobayashi. In our view the teaching of
Kawamatsu is broader than this, however. At the time the
invention now claimed was made, Kawamatsu would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill that there would be a likelihood of
success in modifying the geometry in the club face head grooves
in the inverse relationship to that shown in the tables 2 and 3
and discussed in the specification. Namely, the disclosure of
Kawamatsu is suggestive of changing the cross-sectional angle of
the corner portions of the groove opposite to that shown in the
tables (the inverse relationship being from 90 degrees for low
numbered clubs to 150 degrees for high number clubs) to achieve
a decrease in backspin from the low number clubs to the high
numbered clubs, if such a modification was desired by one of
ordinary skill. Since the desirability of having decreasing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013