Appeal 2007-1676
Application 10/439,183
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Nishizawa, Nakahara, and Lee.
2. Claims 11 and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lee and Shira.
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
NISHIZAWA, NAKAHARA, AND LEE:
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Nishizawa, Nakahara, and Lee
(Answer 3). Claims 2, 3, 5, and 7 depend from claim 1. Claim 1 is drawn to
a golf club head that comprises, inter alia, a metal piece that includes a
tungsten alloy. Claim 1 requires the tungsten alloy to have the following
composition based on the total weight of the metal piece:
a. tungsten in a range of 28wt% - 32wt%;
b. iron in a range of 45wt%-49wt%;
c. nickel in a range of 15wt% - 17wt%; and
d. copper in a range of 1wt% - 3wt%.
In addition, claim 1 requires that the sum of the amount of tungsten, iron,
nickel, and copper in the metal piece is in a range of 93wt% to 98wt%.
The Examiner relies on Nishizawa to teach a golf club head that
comprises a metal piece (Answer 3). The Examiner recognizes, however,
that Nishizawa fails to teach Appellants’ claimed tungsten alloy (id.). The
Examiner relies on Nakahara to show that it is “old in the art to take
advantage of the properties of tungsten alloy in order to provide an increase
in the amount of weight nearer the sole of the [golf club] head” (Answer 3-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013