Appeal 2007-0052
Application 10/438,053
noting that “it is apparent from Johnsen’s figures that his dimensions are
approximately those claimed as can be seen by the relative size of the golf
ball and asserting that “[a]bsent a showing of unexpected results the claimed
dimensions would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan
depending on the compactness desired in the device and the weight desired
in the device” (Answer 3).
Appellant argues that Johnsen, in stressing the importance of
compactness of the overall device, teaches away from modification
regarding the size of Johnsen’s device to arrive at the claimed overall disc
diameter recited in claims 9 and 10 (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant’s position is
not well taken.
Specifically, the teachings of Johnsen to which Appellant refers are
that the measuring tool must be readily available during the golf game and
thus must be capable of being readily fetched up from the pocket of the
trousers, for example, and must be solid and stable so normal use does not
reduce its accuracy (Johnsen, col. 3, ll. 11-18) and that “the ball controller
shall be able to be received in a manner requiring little space for example in
the user’s pocket, and which in addition is relatively light in weight and
relatively simple to produce” (Johnsen, col. 3, ll. 63-67). We understand
from these teachings that the ball controller must be relatively light in
weight and must be sized so as to be capable of fitting in and being fetched
from a user’s pocket. A ball controller having a diameter within the range of
about 3 to about 4 inches, as recited in claim 9, or about 3.586 inches, as
recited in claim 10, with a maximum thickness (wall thickness c) of 6 mm
(0.234 inches) would be capable of fitting in and being fetched from a user’s
trouser pocket and thus falls within the teachings of Johnsen.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013