Appeal 2007-0052
Application 10/438,053
fall within the range of “about from 0.3 inch to about 0.5 inch” recited in
claim 13. We thus find no error in the Examiner’s determination that the
claimed range would have been obvious. The rejection of claim 13 is
sustained.
With respect to claim 15, Appellant argues “[i]t is not understood why
one of ordinary skill in the art would modify a golf ball measuring device by
constructing it from a material that produces a certain sound when contacted
by a golf ball” and the rejection is thus improper (Appeal Br. 9). With
respect to this limitation, the Examiner points out that “Appellant states that
his preferred density produces an audible sound upon contact with a golf
ball. However, inherently Johnsen’s device will also produce a sound and
therefore the claimed density cannot be considered to produce the
unexpected result of a sound” (Answer 5). Specifically, Appellant’s
Specification attributes the creation of a “sound similar to that of a golf ball
dropping into a cup on an actual golf course green” to the rolling of the ball
up the outer peripheral edge 34 and into opening 42 of the device D in the
embodiment of Figs. 7-10 (Specification 9:7-14). In fact, Appellant’s
Specification is silent with respect to material and material properties and
density is not even mentioned in Appellant’s Specification, though it is
recited in original claim 15.2 Appellant’s description reasonably supports
the Examiner’s position that the creation of the sound is dependent on
dropping of the ball through the center opening and not on the particular
material or density of the material. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument does
2 Appellant has not explained the density scale “about from 75D to about
95D” referred to in claim 15. Fiber and fabric densities are often expressed
in a denier scale, or 75D, for example, but Appellant’s disc is not disclosed
as made from fibers or fabric.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013