Appeal 2006-2550
Application 10/750,710
fitting the spaced sections or edge portions 15 into the dimples or recesses in
the surface of the ball. Provision of a rounded or convex contact surface on
Hodges’ spaced sections or edge portions 15 to provide a better seat for the
golf ball as taught by Dawson (FF7), as proposed by the Examiner, would
not, in and of itself, negate the effect of the spaced sections or edge portions
fitting into the dimples or recesses in the surface of the ball and would afford
the additional benefit of providing a better seat for the ball. Accordingly, we
do not agree with Appellants that modifying the Hodges tee to provide
convex contact surfaces as disclosed by Dawson “would destroy the purpose
of the edge portions of the Hodges tee” (Br. 9).
In light of the above, Appellants have not demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 43 as unpatentable over Hodges in view of
Dawson. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 43, as well as claims 15-19,
22-27, 29-33, 36-40, and 42 standing or falling with claim 43, as
unpatentable over Hodges in view of Dawson, and the rejections of claims
20 and 34 as unpatentable over Hodges in view of Dawson and Seager,
claims 21 and 35 as unpatentable over Hodges in view of Dawson and
Clausing, and claims 28 and 41 as unpatentable over Hodges in view of
Dawson and Tan, which Appellants have not argued separately from the
rejection of claim 43, are sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013