Appeal 2007-2848
Application 10/765,106
in order to improve accuracy by improving alignment and control of a
ball striking face, and also describes a grip able to be used with a
putter. (Id.) Takeuchi discloses alignment lines for grip positioning
on a shaft, placed on a flat or rear end surface of a grip and indicia
substantially filling up the entire length and width of a grip top flat
surface except the center (Fig. 5). (Answer 7.)
The Examiner concludes in view of the disclosure of Radakovich that
it would have been obvious to modify the putter of Cacicedo to
have a sighting device placed on a flat surface of a grip end …
in order to assist a golfer in improving accuracy by improving
alignment and control of a face of a club. In view of the patent
of Radakovich and Takeuchi it would have been obvious to
modify the putter of Cacicedo to have the alignment lines being
indicia and taking up the entire length, width and center of a
grip top flat surface and a first alignment line and second
alignment line intersecting to form four angles and a cross in
order to minimize the number of parts needed for a grip by
having indicia and in order to be more visually visible for a
golfer by using the entire surface for the alignment indicia. As
such for an oval shaped grip a first alignment line will be longer
than a second alignment line.
(Answer 7.)
In order to determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has
been established, we consider the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1996); (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of
nonobviousness, if present. We additionally recognize that “[t]he Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when
determining patentability of an invention over the prior art,” and “may not
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013