Appeal 2007-1970
Application 10/167,744
an inner cover layer formed from a first composition having a
first hardness and a first flexural modulus; and
an outer cover layer formed from a second composition
having a second hardness and a second flexural modulus,
wherein the second hardness differs from the first
hardness by about 5 points or less,
wherein the first and second flexural moduli are substantially
similar at ambient temperature, and wherein the second
flexural modulus differs from the first flexural modulus at
temperatures above or below ambient.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Maruko US 5,704,853 Jan. 6, 1998
Sullivan US 6,394,914 B1 May 28, 2002
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 19, 21-30, and 32-34 under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(a, e) as
anticipated by Sullivan;
2. Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a, e) as anticipated by or under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sullivan; and
3. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sullivan in
view of Maruko.
ISSUES
I. The Examiner contends that Sullivan inherently anticipates claims
1-10, 19, 21-30, and 32-34. Appellant contends that the Examiner has failed
to establish that Sullivan’s golf ball necessarily has the claimed
characteristics of flexural modulus, contact angles, and coefficient of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013