Appeal No. 2006-1946
Application No. 10/437,580
so. Hence, contrary to the appellant’s argument (brief, page 12)
combining the disclosures of Douglas and Kennedy to arrive at the
invention claimed in the appellant’s claim 1 would have been
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In
re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
Claim 2
The appellant argues that Douglas and Kennedy do not
disclose or suggest incorporating a thermochromic agent into a
structural material of a puck or any other sports object (brief,
page 12). Kennedy discloses that “the thermochromic material can
be incorporated on or in the surface of the cover layer”
(¶ 0023). The thermochromic agent incorporated in the surface is
incorporated into the structural material. Hence, we are not
convinced of reversible error in the examiner’s rejection of
claim 2.
Claim 10
The appellant argues that Douglas and Kennedy do not
disclose a thermochromic transition at a temperature below about
35°F (brief, page 12). Kennedy’s disclosure that the
thermochromic material indicates that the golf ball is at the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013