Appeal 2006-2550
Application 10/750,710
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed March 17, 2006). Appellants present opposing arguments
in the Brief (filed February 8, 2006).
THE ISSUES
Appellants contend that claim 1 is not unpatentable over Hodges in
view of Clausing because the teaching of Hodges of notching the head,
thereby forming spaced sections 15 between the notches for fitting into
dimples or recesses in the surface of the ball, in order to seat the ball more
securely in the saucer shaped head of the tee, would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art away from the combination of Hodges and Clausing proposed
by the Examiner (Br. 7-8). Appellants do not separately argue the rejections
of dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12-14 (Br. 8), all of which rejections are
grounded at least in part on the combination of Hodges and Clausing
contested by Appellants. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 2-6, 8-10,
and 12-14 stand or fall with the rejection of claim 1. See In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582
F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). See also In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Appellants contend that the rejections of independent claims 15, 29,
and 43, and the claims depending therefrom, are improper because Hodges’
teaching of providing a more secure seating of the ball in the saucer shaped
head of the tee by forming notches in the edges of the head, leaving spaced
sections 15 for fitting into the dimples or recesses in the surface of the ball,
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art away from the modification
proposed by the Examiner (Br. 9). As Appellant has not separately argued
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013