Appeal 2006-2550
Application 10/750,710
the rejection of claims 15-19, 22-27, 29-33, 36-40, and 42 as unpatentable
over Hodges in view of Dawson apart from the like rejection of claim 43, in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 43 as the
representative claim to decide the appeal of this rejection, with claims 15-19,
22-27, 29-33, 36-40, and 42 standing or falling with claim 43. Further, as
Appellants have not separately argued the rejections of claims 20, 21, 28, 34,
35, and 41 separately from the rejection of claim 43 as unpatentable over
Hodges in view of Dawson, the rejections of these claims will also stand or
fall with the rejection of claim 43. See Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572,
2 USPQ2d at 1528.
In light of Appellants’ contentions, the issues before us are:
1. with respect to the rejection of claim 1, whether Hodges’ teaching to
form spaced notches in the edge of the head of the tee in order to seat
the ball more securely in the head would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art away from forming the upper face 12 of Hodges’ golf tee
head with a radius of curvature such that the golf ball only contacts
the prongs (spaced edge sections 15) in order to minimize resistance
to the golf ball at the moment of departure from the tee, in view of the
teachings of Clausing, as proposed by the Examiner (Answer 3) and
2. with respect to the rejection of claim 43, whether Hodges’ teaching to
form spaced notches in the edge of the head of the tee in order to seat
the ball more securely would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
away from forming the prongs (spaced edge sections 15) of Hodges
with a convex contact surface in order to better support a teed golf
ball, in view of the teaching of Dawson, as proposed by the Examiner
(Answer 4).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013