Appeal 2007-1970
Application 10/167,744
friction. The issue before us is: Has the Examiner made sufficient factual
findings to establish that each and every claim limitation is found either
expressly or inherently in Sullivan? For the reasons discussed below, we
answer this question in the negative.
II. The Examiner contends that it would have been a matter of routine
optimization to select materials for use in the cover layers of Sullivan and
thereby achieve the features recited in claims 1-11. Appellant contends that
the Examiner’s finding of obviousness is based on an improper obvious-to-
try rationale. The issue before us is: Has the Examiner provided a
reasonable basis to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to select materials for the inner and outer cover layers such
that the resultant golf ball would have the claimed features? For the reasons
discussed below, we answer this question in the affirmative.
RELEVANT FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The Specification teaches that when the same compositions
are used in both the inner and the outer cover layers, the
processing or performance characteristics of the golf ball may be
modified by the addition of additives to the inner and/or outer
cover layers. The additives modify properties such as color,
coefficient of friction, specific gravity, dynamic modulus, or
other dynamic mechanical properties, resiliences, wettabilities,
melting or softening points, melt flow properties, abrasion
resistences, natural frequencies, tear resistances, tensile yield
strengths, or combinations thereof that can advantageously
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013