Appeal 2007-1970
Application 10/167,744
Therefore, we remand the Application to the Examiner for a determination
of whether "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the art to which said subject matter pertains" as required under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 and consideration of any secondary indicia of non-obviousness such as
unexpected results. 37 C.F.R. §41.50(a)(1) (2006); Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1211 (8th ed., Rev. 5, August 2006).
The Examiner may wish to consider the following additional findings
of fact:
9) Sullivan discloses an embodiment of a golf ball in which the
inner cover layer has a Shore D hardness in the range of 10-55
and is preferably formed from ionomeric or non-ionomeric
polyolefin material. The outer cover layer has a Shore D hardness
in the range of 10-55 and preferably comprises ionomer. Even
more preferably, the Shore D hardness of both layers is in the
range of 30-50 (col. 5, ll. 15-21).
10) Sullivan discloses that a suitable non-ionomeric
polyolefin material for the inner cover layer is a polyurethane
(see col. 3, ll. 14-30).
11) Sullivan specifies ESTANE® polyester polyurethane X-
4517 as a suitable material for use in the cover layers (col. 7, ll.
22-34). The Shore D hardness of ESTANE® polyester
polyurethane X-4517 is 39 (US 6,142,887).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013