Appeal 2007-1676
Application 10/439,183
burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993), citation omitted. The Examiner failed
to meet his burden of establishing that Appellants’ claimed tungsten alloy
was known or obvious in the art at the time of Appellants’ claimed
invention. Accordingly, the Examiner failed to meet his burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. If the Examiner fails to
establish a prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will be overturned.
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Nishizawa,
Nakahara, and Lee.
LEE and SHIRA:
Claims 11 and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lee and Shira (Answer 5). Claims 14-
16 depend from claim 11. Claim 11 is drawn to a golf club head that
comprises, inter alia, a metal piece that includes a tungsten alloy. Claim 11
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 11 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%.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013