Appeal 2006-2550
Application 10/750,710
FINDINGS OF FACT
FF1. Appellants do not dispute that, if Hodges is modified as proposed by
the Examiner in view of Clausing, the subject matter of claim 1 will result.
FF2. Appellants do not dispute that, if Hodges is modified as proposed by
the Examiner in view of Dawson, the subject matter of claim 43 will result.
FF3. Hodges discloses a golf tee comprising a shank 10 and a saucer
shaped head 11. The head 11 has a concave upper face 12 terminating at a
peripheral ring 13.
FF4. Hodges (Hodges 1:100-108) teaches that:
In order that the ball may be more securely seated
in the saucer shaped head of the tee, the edges of
the head may be notched or recessed as indicated
at 14 causing spaced sections 15 in the edge of the
rim to engage with the surface of the ball, these
edge portions fitting into the dimples or the
recesses in the surface of the ball.
FF5. Clausing discloses a golf tee having a body member 6 provided on its
upper end with a plurality of supporting edges for properly positioning and
supporting a golf ball while offering a minimum of resistance to the flight of
the ball at the moment of departure from the tee (Clausing 1:44-50). The
supporting edges are formed as quarter pyramids 7, with V-shaped cutaway
areas 10 between the quarter pyramids 7 so as to minimize resistance to the
flight of the ball, as there is no continuous rim to impede the flight of the
ball (Clausing 1:50-65).
FF6. The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “to form the golf tee of Hodges with a radius of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013