Appeal 2006-1941
Application 09/877,835
Thus, Melvin would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
the multi-layer core recited in the appellant’s independent claims 1, 14 and
20.
The appellant argues that there would have been no motivation to
substitute Yamagishi’s core for that of Melvin because Melvin discloses that
the core has specific properties designed to control the moment of inertia,
and Yamagishi’s outer cover is harder than the inner cover whereas Melvin’s
inner cover is harder than the outer cover (brief, page 9). Melvin indicates
that the desired moment of inertia, coefficient of restitution, compression
and hardness are obtainable whether the center core is harder or softer than
the outer core (col. 4, lines 58-67; figure). It reasonably appears that
Yamagishi’s disclosure that the hardness of the layer surrounding the inner
sphere is greater than that of the inner sphere to compensate for the short
restitution of the soft inner sphere (col. 4, lines 29-32) would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in art, using the portions of Melvin’s core
hardness ranges wherein the outer core hardness is greater than the center
core hardness to obtain that benefit.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-16, 19 and 20.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013