Appeal 2007-0052
Application 10/438,053
Johnsen does not specify a value for the overall disc diameter of the
ball controller, but does disclose a cavity diameter d3 of 42.82 mm (1.686
inches). As illustrated in Fig. 3, the overall diameter of Johnsen’s ball
controller is about 1.75 times the cavity diameter, or about 3 inches, thereby
supporting the Examiner’s finding that the overall diameter of Johnsen’s ball
controller is approximately that recited in Appellant’s claims. Thus, as
Appellant has not alleged, much less proven, that the claimed diameter
produces unexpected results, we find no error in the Examiner’s
determination that an overall disc diameter as recited in claims 9 and 10 for
Johnsen’s ball controller would have been obvious. See In re Woodruff, 919
F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (where the
difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or
other variable within the claims, the applicant must show that the particular
range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves
unexpected results relative to the prior art range). The rejection of claims 9
and 10 is sustained.
Appellant argues that, since the interior diameter of Johnsen is
specifically dimensioned to accurately measure a golf ball, modification of
Johnsen to arrive at the central opening height recited in claim 13 would
render Johnsen’s device inoperative for its intended purpose (Appeal Br.
10). This argument is not well founded.
Johnsen teaches that a wall thickness c (central opening height) of 6
mm (0.234 inches) and an axial length l of inner face 14a of 3 mm are
shown, but that the length l can be increased to, for example, 4-5 mm
(Johnsen, col. 6, ll. 54-58). Such an increase would seemingly increase the
wall thickness c to 7-8 mm (0.275 inches to 0.314 inches). This appears to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013