Appeal 2006-2550
Application 10/750,710
explicitly from statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art, or, in some cases, the nature of the problem to be solved. In
addition, the teaching, motivation or suggestion may be implicit from the
prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references. The test
for an implicit showing is what the combined teachings, knowledge of one
of ordinary skill in the art and the nature of the problem to be solved as a
whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
ANALYSIS
Hodges’ teaching of providing notches 14 and spaced sections 15 at
the edge of head 11 of the tee to more securely seat the ball (FF4) does not
specifically address the radius of curvature of the concave upper face 12.
Further, Hodges gives absolutely no indication that maximizing contact
surface area between the ball and the upper face of the head 11 of the tee
either is desirable or contributes to more secure seating of the ball. In fact,
one skilled in the art would probably infer from Hodges’ teaching that the
radius of curvature of the concave upper face 12 is smaller than that of a
conventional golf ball, so that the spaced sections or edge portions 15 will be
oriented so as to extend into the dimples, rather than along the outer surface
of the ball. The modification proposed by the Examiner (FF6), therefore, is
not at odds with Hodges’ objective to more securely seat the ball in the
saucer shaped head 11 of the tee and contributes to achieving another
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013