Appeal 2006-2550
Application 10/750,710
objective, recognized by Clausing, of minimizing resistance to the flight of
the ball at the moment of departure (FF5).
To the extent that Appellants are arguing (Br. 8) that the subject
matter of claim 1 is not suggested by the combination of Hodges and
Clausing because Hodges discloses an arrangement wherein the spaced
sections or edge portions 15 fit into the dimples, rather than across the
dimples, as disclosed by Appellants (Specification 4:25 to 5:2), this
argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which contains no
limitation as to the secant length of the prongs or their interaction with the
outer skin of the golf ball. Appellants therefore cannot rely on such
distinctions for patentability.
In light of the above, Appellants have not demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Hodges in view of
Clausing. The rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-4, 8-10,
12, and 13 standing or falling with claim 1, is sustained. The rejections of
claim 5 as unpatentable over Hodges in view of Clausing and Dawson, claim
6 as unpatentable over Hodges in view of Clausing and Seager, and claim 14
as unpatentable over Hodges in view of Clausing and Tan, which Appellants
have not argued separately from the rejection of claim 1, are likewise
sustained.
With respect to the rejection of claim 43 as unpatentable over Hodges
in view of Dawson, Appellants argue that the purpose of the spaced sections
or edge portions of Hodges’ tee is to increase, rather than decrease,
interaction between the tee and ball (Br. 9). To the extent that the object of
Hodges’ notches 14 causing spaced sections 15 (FF4) is to increase
interaction between the tee and ball, such increased interaction is effected by
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013