IN THE UNTED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`TAYLOR MADE GOLF COMPANY, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`TRIPLE TEE GOLF, IN.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`US. Patent No. 8,142,308
`
`Issue Date: March 27, 2012
`
`Title: SYSTEM OF GOLF CLUB PERFORMANCE
`
`ENHANCEMENT AND ARTICLES
`RESULTANT THEREFREOM
`
`Inter Partes Review No. |PR2015
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR 42.107
`
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8 142 308
`
`Page 1 of 16
`
`

`
`Taylor Made’s challenge to the vaiidity of US. Patent No. 8,142,308
`
`(Ex.
`
`1 herewith), hereinafter the ‘308 Patent, is summarized at Page 18 of
`
`their Petition which page is attached as Ex. 2 herewith.
`
`
`GROUNDS ONE TWQ AND THREE OF THE. CHALLENGE
`
`As may be seen therein, each of the first three grounds of the Petition
`
`employ US. Patent No. 5,911,638 to Parente (Ex. 3 herewith) as either a
`
`§102 or §103 basis for all of the twenty claims of the ‘308 patent. As such,
`
`if Parente fails as an anticipatory or teaching reference, each of the
`
`Petitioner’s first three grounds of rejection also fail. The ‘308 patent is a
`
`second generation continuation—in—part of the ‘(-360 patent. However,
`
`its
`
`point of novelty retative to the ‘66O patent,
`
`lies in its recitation of the
`
`following limitation 1I(b) of Claim 1
`
`two selectable golfer replaceable weighting elements secured within
`(13)
`said void space, wherein at least one weighting element thereof is not
`contiguous to any part of said face plate, and a selected coordinate value
`upon the Y—axis in any one of said weighting elements does not equal a
`selected coordinate value of Y of at least a second one of said weighting
`elements, and wherein at ieast one selected weighting element is recessed
`within said void space and disposed at a position having a coordinate of X2
`and a coordinate of 22.
`
`From the above,
`
`it may be appreciated that the ‘308 patent focuses
`
`upon a weighting element which must include a X2, Z2 coordinate within
`
`Page 2 of 16
`
`

`
`the 27 cell orthonormai coordinate system defined by the preamble of each
`
`independent claim. That is, the “at least one selected weighting element of
`
`the system of the ‘308 patent must include the X2, Z2 coordinate for it to be
`
`relevant to any independent claim of the ‘308 patent.
`
`in other words, the
`
`system must enable weighting at one or more of the foliowing coordinates:
`
`X2, Y1, Z2; X2, Y2, Z2; and/or X2, Y3, Z2.
`
`Figs. 2 and 14 of the specification provide examples of this weighting
`
`capability. Fig. 4 thereof illustrates that X2, Z2 is a weighting coordinate for
`
`neutral adjustment of backspin, trajectory and hook or slice.
`
`Attached as Ex. 4 herewith is Page 29 of the supporting declaration
`
`of Petitioner’s expert showing diagrams of Fig. 2, 3 and 4 of Parente, which
`
`purport to analyze the Parente patent in terms of the 27 cell matrix system
`
`of the ‘308 patent. The same diagram appears at Page ‘E9 of the Taylor
`
`Made petition. As may be appreciated from a reading of both the ‘E360 and
`
`‘308 patents, the Patent Holder’s invention entails the use of a matrix of
`
`cell-specific weights to achieve changes in the location of the center of
`
`gravity of a hollow golf club head and,
`
`thereby,
`
`to address
`
`certain
`
`physiologic, golf course related or weather related concerns of the golfer.
`
`Parente however suffers from a fatal deficiency, that being, the ability to
`
`Page 3 of 16
`
`

`
`weight at the X2, Z2 coordinate only if the X2, Z1 coordinate therebeneath
`
`is also weighted.
`
`It does not require 52 pages of engineering analysis (the
`
`length of the declaration of Taylor Made’s expert) to appreciate that the
`
`weighting system of Parente cannot achieve cell-specific weighting unless
`
`one desires also to weight at the Z1 coordinate.
`
`in other words, regardless
`
`of what the length of screws 14, 16 and 18 are in the system of Parente
`
`weighting at any celi above the Z1 level requires that the Z1 cell also be
`
`weighted. Only the shortest screw in the Parente system can discretely
`
`weight at a Z1 cell. This may be seen in Fig. 3 of Parente in which screw
`
`16 while indeed reaching at the tip thereof to the X2, Z2 location requires
`
`an integral weighting at X2, 21 to reach the X2, Z2 weighting coordinate
`
`required by all independent claims of the ‘308 patent. As such, discrete
`
`weighting at the X2, Z2 coordinate does not exist in Parente without also
`
`weighting therebeneath at the X2, Z1 location whether or not a system user
`
`has any reason to weight his club at that coordinate.
`
`Additionally, the reference to Parente is incapable of any weighting at
`
`the X2, Y2, Z2 location, an example of which appears in Fig. 2 of the ‘308
`
`patent. This is clearly the case because Parente is strictly a peripheral
`
`weighting system, meaning that the coordinate X2, Y2, Z2, can never be
`
`reached in the system of Parente.
`
`Page 4 of 16
`
`

`
`Apart from the fact that Parente can never weight at any X2, Z2
`
`location without also weighting at the X2, Z1 location is the fact that the
`
`normal center of gravity of an X2, Z2 weighting can never be achieved
`
`because of the supporting weight of the screw 16 in Parente of the matrix
`
`cell therebeneath at the X2, Z1 coordinate. As such, Parente cannot
`
`function as either a structural or functional equivalent of any of the
`
`independent claims of the ‘308 patent and, therefore, cannot be prior art
`
`either under §102 or §103 or any claim dependent upon the three
`
`independent claims of the ‘308 patent, namely, Ciaim 1, 10 and 17.
`
`Further,
`
`the specification,
`
`inclusive of the drawings, of the ‘308
`
`patent, fail to provide a single example of the patent holder’s system in
`
`which a discrete X2, Z1 weighting is provided integrally with a discrete X2,
`
`Z2 weighting. Given the above deficiencies in the teaching of Parente, it
`
`also cannot function as a teaching reference in combination with Ellingham
`
`(Ex. 5), a putter, since Ellingham only teaches weighting along the Y axis
`
`(see Fig. 1 thereof) or along the X-axis.
`
`in other words, Ellingham is devoid
`
`of any teaching of celi-specific weighting at the X2, Z2 location. This may
`
`be appreciated with respect to Page 38 of the Report of Petitioner’s expert
`
`(Ex. 6 herewith) which shows that the Y—axis weighting means 26 thereof is
`
`so large in diameter that it encompasses about two—thirds of the Z—axis at
`
`Page 5 of 16
`
`

`
`the X2 location. Thereby Ellingham’s problem is similar to that of Parente,
`
`namely, that the X2, Z2 location thereof cannot be weighted in isolation
`
`from substantial other weighting below it (and a lesser amount of weighting
`
`above it). As such, the center of gravity that a user of the system would
`
`expect
`
`for
`
`the X2, Z2 location cannot be achieved because of the
`
`considerable additional weight therebelow which is required to reach the
`
`X2, Z2 location.
`
`The result,
`
`therefore,
`
`is the same as that of Parents,
`
`namely, that the X2, Z2 location (also see in Fig. 4 of the ‘308 patent)
`
`cannot be achieved if weighting therebeneath is integral with the X2, Z2
`
`locafion.
`
`The effect, in terms of functionality may be seen in said Fig. 4 of the
`
`‘308 patent, namely,
`
`that by pulling the center of gravity downward, the
`
`unnecessary weighting at
`
`the X2, Z1 position operates to increase
`
`backspin and trajectory, whereas the intention of a golfer wishing a cell
`
`specific X2, Z2 weighting is that of neutral backspin (and also of neutral
`
`hook/slice and trajectory compensation).
`
`In other words, the physics of
`
`Parents and Ellingham, whether taken singularly or in combination,
`
`is
`
`inescapable. As such, neither can anticipate nor render obvious the cell-
`
`specific structure or function of the ‘308 patent.
`
`Page 6 of 16
`
`

`
`GROUND FOUR OF THE CHALLENGE
`
`As may be seen in Ex. 1, Ground 4 of the challenge is that of a
`
`§102(e) reference to Beach ‘161 (Ex. 7 herewith).
`
`A. Initially,
`
`the patent holder must note that the claim of priority of
`
`the‘308 patent reverts back at least to the filing date of the ‘660
`
`patent,
`
`the respective specifications of each being substantial
`
`identicaily to each other but
`
`for
`
`the addition of a few further
`
`embodiments at the end of the ‘308 patent. Taylor Made contends
`
`that the ‘308 patent lacks sufficient continuity of subject matter under
`
`35 USC 120 to properly claim priority of the date of filing of the ‘E360
`
`patent which is April 3, 2004.
`
`However, Figs. 1-20 and the
`
`descriptions thereof are common to both the ‘308 and ‘S60 patent.
`
`As such, Petitioner's contention that there does not exist sufficient
`
`commonality of subject matter between the respective specifications
`
`to support the claims of the‘308 patent for priority under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§i20 to the ‘660 patent is simply untenable. See In re Chan 66 F. 3d
`
`297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The specification of the ‘660 patent clearly
`
`supports the claims of the ‘308 patent. This issue is meaningful
`
`because said filing date of the ‘E360 patent is that of April 3, 2904,
`
`while the filing date. of Beach ‘161 is that of a date of filing of its
`
`Page 7 of 16
`
`

`
`predecessor provisional, namely, January 10, 2005.
`
`In other words,
`
`the ‘308 patent enjoys a presumption of priority that is about ten
`
`months earlier than that of Beach, even giving Tayior Made the
`
`benefit of the doubt as to whether or not sufficient commonality of
`
`subject matter exists between the provisional of Beach ‘161 and its
`
`utility conversion under §119(e).
`
`. Further to the Section 120 issue, Taylor l\/lade’s primary issue with
`
`regard to the ‘660 patent is that it does not teach “an enclosure over a
`
`void space of said club head,” referring to the embodiments of Figs.
`
`21 and 22 of the ‘308 patent. However,
`
`in most claims of the ‘308
`
`patent, the patent holder simply ciaims a "void space substantially
`
`conformal in geometry to the club head. As such, only two claims
`
`(Claims 8 and 15) of
`
`the ‘308 patent affirmatively claim the
`
`embodiments of Figs. 21 and 22 thereof. Accordingly, support of this
`
`feature in the ‘660 patent is unnecessary, given that the other 18
`
`claims of the ‘308 patent make no reference to an enclosure over the
`
`void space. The ‘308 patent is therefore entitled to the priority date
`
`of April 3, 2004 of the ‘660 patent.
`
`. Nonetheless, assuming in arguendo that Beach ‘161 could qualify as
`
`prior art, Applicant has attached as Ex. 8 the matrix chart thereof by
`
`Page 8 of 16
`
`

`
`Petitioner's expert. Therein and particularly, with reference to Fig. 3
`
`of Beach,
`
`it is seen that vertical tube 5 may cross horizontal tube 6
`
`shown in Fig. 2 of Beach at the X2 , Z2 position, Petitioner apparently
`
`contends that by a proper placement of weights at
`
`the X2, Z2,
`
`position, one can accomplish weighting within that cell. And, thereby,
`
`that would be analogous to the weighting shown in Fig. 2 of the ‘308
`
`patent, This analysis however concedes that in the system of Beach,
`
`weighting is possible only at the X2, Y2, Z2 ceil. See also Fig. 10 of
`
`Beach. As such, no weighting at the X2, Y1, Z2 cell or the X2, Y3,
`
`Y2 cell is possible. That is, given the lack of Y-axis adjustability, the
`
`Claim 1
`
`limitation of a different Y-axis value for one weighting
`
`element versus another Y axis value for another weighting element,
`
`Beach cannot berelevant to any of Claims 1-9.
`
`. Further, Beach cannot relate to any of Claims 10-20 because without
`
`Y-axis adjustability, one cannot adjust Y and Z weighting values in
`
`tandem as all of these claims require.
`
`Ie, the coordination of axes
`
`for
`
`variability
`
`along the Y and Z axes from mutually higher to
`
`mutually lower iocations and across all planes of increasing YZ
`
`positionabilty recited in Claim 17 cannot be accomplished by the
`
`Page 9 of 16
`
`

`
`teaching of Beach since there does not exist any Y axis adjustability
`
`therein.
`
`PETlTlONER’S FIFTH CHALLENGE
`
`A. Therein, Petitioner cites the combination of Beach and Ellingham
`
`for §103(a) purposes. However,
`
`if as above noted, Beach cannot
`
`be prior art as against the ‘308 patent due to the Patent Holder’s
`
`valid claim of priority of April 3, 2004 under 35 U.S.C. 120. As,
`
`such, Ground 5 of the Challenge is as moot as is Ground 4.
`
`B. Further, as above noted, independent Claim 1 of the ‘308 patent
`
`requires use of
`
`two seiectable golfer
`
`replaceable weighting
`
`elements in which the selected Y-axis value of any one of the
`
`weight elements does not equal a selected coordinate of Y in a
`
`second of the golfer replaceable weighting elements. Given this
`
`essential limitation of Claim 1, even a casual review of Beach “I61
`
`shows that at
`its possible X2, Z2 coordinate thereof,
`the Y2
`location is fixed. Accordingly,
`there is no selectable Y axis
`
`coordinate in Beach because the Y2 position aiong the Y axis is
`
`the only location at which any weighting is possible. Further, even
`
`if this location was deemed to satisfy the requirement of 'll(b) of
`
`Claim 1 of ‘308,
`
`there is no capability in Beach to accomplish
`
`Page 10 of 16
`
`

`
`weighting at a second selected coordinate value of Y that is not
`
`equal
`
`in Y coordinate location to the first selected weighting
`
`element.
`
`In other words, Beach simply lacks any structure for a
`
`second golfer replaceable weighting element
`
`located within a
`
`different Y-axis cell from that illustrated in Fig. 10 of Beach.
`
`.As is
`
`fundamental
`
`to all obviousness rejections where two
`
`references are combined,
`
`if the teaching reference (in this case
`
`Beach) fails as such,
`
`that deficiency cannot be remedied by
`
`another reference that one suggests may be combined with the
`
`failed teaching reference. Stated otherwise,
`
`if Beach is fatally
`
`defective both in terms of substance and priority under 35 USC
`
`120, Ground 5 as well as Ground 4 of the Petition must fail.
`
`. The above said, a secondary reference must be combinable with
`
`the primary reference, by one using the skill of a person of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art. Herein, Ellingham only discloses an
`
`entirely solid putter and, as above noted, the structure of its Y-axis
`
`adjustability, reflected in element 26, far exceeds the diameter of
`
`any single weighting cell of Applicant's system.
`
`Actually, the
`
`diameter of the Y axis weighting tube of Ellingham is more than
`
`double the size of individual cells of the Patent Holder's 27 cell
`
`Page 11 of 16
`
`

`
`matrix. Nonetheless, Requester’s urged combination of Ellingham
`
`with Beach ‘161 would,
`
`if feasible, apparently result in a Y axis
`
`weighting tube in which three orthonormal weighting tubes thereof
`
`would intersect at the X2, Y2, Z2 location of Beach. As such, this
`
`would provide a weighting at the Y2
`
`coordinate in combination
`
`with weightings at
`
`the X2 and Z2 coordinate.
`
`This concept
`
`apparently entails the removal or non-use of the X1, Y2 and X3,
`
`Y2 weights of Ellingham. However, a problem there is that the Y-
`
`axis weighting tube 12 of Ellingham would be contiguous to the
`
`face of the club head, this being a prohibited location under ‘l](b) of
`
`Claim 1.
`
`in other words, wherever weights may be disposed within
`
`channel 26 of Ellingham, the channel itseif will materially affect the
`
`physics of the club head, inclusive of the “sweet spot” of the face
`
`plate at which flexibility is
`
`a
`
`requirement
`
`for optimal
`
`club
`
`performance. As such, Claims 6, 7 and 12 cannot be defeated by
`
`the Fifth Challenge.
`
`E. Regarding Claim 4, since the weighting means of Ellingham
`
`encompasses both the Z1 and Z2 position, the Requester is left
`
`with the same issue discussed above with respect to Parente,
`
`namely, that of, whether desired or not desired by the end user, a
`
`Page 12 of 16
`
`

`
`Z1 weighting is a requirement to effect a Z2 weighting, the result of
`
`which is a lowering of the center of gravity, thereby increasing both
`
`backspln and trajectory, either of which may not be desired by a
`
`particular golfer.
`
`in regard to Claims 11 and 12, Ellingham cannot
`
`resolve the
`
`limitations of Beach, since it is already pre-weighted at both the Z1 and Z2
`
`coordinates at the X2 location.
`
`The fact that Ellingham uses weight collars 24 that may be selectably
`
`attached to weighting screws 25 does not respond to any of the issues
`
`above regarding the ability of a combination of Beach and Ellingham to
`
`achieve coordinate, cell-specific weighting.
`
`With respect to Claim 20, the proposed combination of Beach and
`
`Ellingham does not possess a capability for concurrent adjustment of any
`
`scalar value along the plane of the YZ axis (see Fig. 5 of ‘308 patent). That
`
`is, the combination of Beach and Ellingham do not have a capabiiity for
`
`weighting at the Y1, Z1 or Y3, Z3 positions or,
`
`if "a” in Claim 17 were a
`
`negative number, as Taylor Made concedes is a possibility, Beach and
`Ellingham would not have a weighting capability at the Y3, Z1 or Y1, Z3
`
`locations. The above also would be the case with respect to dependent
`
`Page 13 of 16
`
`

`
`Claims 11, 12, 14 and 20 relative to Ground 5 of the Challenge of the ’308
`
`patent.
`
`In summary, Challenges 1-3 must fail because Parente cannot effect
`
`discrete weighting at the X2, Z2 cell of Patent Holder's 27 cell matrix and
`
`Challenges 4-5 must fail because Patent Holder enjoys priority of invention
`
`over Beach under 35 U.S.C. 120 as to all claims except Claims 8 and ‘I5 of
`
`the ‘308 patent, and those claims are valid for other reasons as set forth
`
`above.
`
`For the above reasons, the Petitioner cannot prevail
`
`in any of the
`
`Challenges presented and the Petition should be dismissed.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`TRIPLE TEE GOLF, INC.
`
`By:
`
`/é
`
`n
`
`a
`
`elvin K. 8' ve
`
`Melvin K. Silverman & Assocs., P.C.
`1000 West MoNab Road, Suite 308
`Pompano Beach, FL 33069
`Telephone (954) 489-0502
`Fax:
`(954) 933-2852
`
`Exhibits herewith:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`308 Patent.
`
`identification of Challenge.
`
`Parents patent.
`
`Parents ceii matrix diagram.
`
`Page 14 of 16
`
`

`
`P°.“'.°3.U‘
`
`Eliingham patent.
`
`Ellingham cell matrix diagram.
`
`Beach “I61 Patent.
`
`Beach cell matrix diagram.
`
`Page 15 of 16
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`l hereby certify that on the ifday of August 2015, a copy of the
`
`following document(s) described as:
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR 42.107
`
`TO PETlT|ON FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,142,308
`
`was served on the attorneys for Appellee, listed below, via Electronic Mail.
`
`Gary A. Clark, Esq.
`Bridgette Agness, Esq.
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER 8. HAMPTON LLP
`333 South Hope Street, 43"‘ Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
` elvin K. Silverman
`
`Counsel for Appellant
`
`Page 16 of 16
`
`

`
`Hllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
`
`US008}
`
`Ex. 1
`
`(12) United States Patent
`US 8,142,308 B2
`(10) Patent No.:
`Gillig
`(45) Date of Patent:
`*Mar. 27, 2012
`
`
`....... .. 473/324,473/334;473/345;473/349
`(52) U.S.Cl.
`(58) Field of Classification Search
`473/324-350,
`473/287-292
`See application file for complete search history.
`
`(56)
`
`References Cited
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`4,695,054 A 7'
`9/1987 Tunstall
`4,795,159 A ‘
`111989 Nagamoto
`4,8ll,'-J49 A ‘
`3/I989 Kobayashi
`4,867,458 A *
`911989 Surnikawaetal.
`6,530,848 B2‘
`3/2003 Giliig
`7,108,609 B2‘
`9f2006 Stiles et al.
`7,128,660 B2‘
`I0/2006 Gillig ...... ..
`7,223,180 B2’
`S/2007 \Villel'i et al.
`7,854,667 32* 12/2010 Gillig
`* cited by examiner
`
`
`
`473838
`473/338
`473037
`473/336
`473/334
`473.056
`473/324
`.. 473/334
`4737334
`
`(54) SYSTEM OF GOLF CLUB PERFORLIANCE
`ENHANCEMENT AND ARTICLES
`RESULTANT THEREFROM
`
`(75)
`
`Inventor:
`
`John P. Gllllg, Pompano Beach, FL (US)
`
`(73) Assignee: Triple Tee Golf, Inc., Pompano Beach,
`FL (US)
`
`( * ) Notice:
`
`Subject to any disciairner, the term of this
`patent is extended or adjusted under 35
`U.S.C. 154fb) by 0 days.
`
`This patent is subject to a terminal dis-
`claiiner.
`
`(21) Appl.No.: l2l968,832
`
`(22) Filed:
`
`Dec. 15, 2010
`
`(65)
`
`Prior Publication Data
`
`US 2011/0081987 Al
`
`Apr. 7, 2011
`
`Primary E.1'am:'7:er — Sebastiano Passaniti
`(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Melvin K. Silvernian; Yi Li
`
`Related U.S. Application Data
`
`(57)
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`(63) Continuation of application No. 11/588,992, filed on
`Oct. 27, 2006, now Pat. No. 7,854,667, which is a
`continuation-in-part of application No. 10/818,899,
`filed on/tpr. 3, 2004, now Pat. No. 7,128,660, which is
`a continuation-in-part of application No. 10/3 83,532,
`filed on Mar. 10, 2003, now abandoned, which is a
`continuation—in-part of application No. 09/849,522,
`filed on May 7, 2001, now Pat. No. 6,530,848.
`
`(60) Provisional application No. 60/205,250, filed on May
`19, 2000.
`
`(51)
`
`Int. Cl.
`.4631? 53/04
`
`(2006.01)
`
`The perfonnance of a golf club is enhanced through the
`provision ofa void space behind a face plate and above a sole
`portion, to decrease club weight and provide single, or C0111-
`binations, of selectable weighting elements within volumet-
`ric coordinates ofan ortlionornial matrix about the void space
`and entire club. The weighted coordinates are provided in
`response to ball strike, flight analysis and physioiogic obser-
`vation of the golf strike swing. Ball backspin,
`trajectory,
`penetration hook or slice, and ballooning may be modified
`through the use ofdefinable combinations ofweighting strat-
`egies zuid sub—strategies.
`
`20 Claims, 15 Drawing Sheets
`
`
`
`TMG 1001, Page I
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 1 of 15
`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`TMG 1001, Page 2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 2 of 15
`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`(X2.Y2.Z2)
`
`F1Gi2Z
`
`TMG 1001, Page 3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 3 of 15
`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`XY PLANE
`
`!O4
`
`HEEL
`
`X1
`
`2
`
`Y
`
`I
`
`MAX.
`BACKSP|N/
`
`BALOONING
`
`SLlCE(RIGHT)
`
`COMPENSATiON
`
`MIN.
`BACKSPIN
`
`3
`
`I05
`
`LOW
`TRA-J.
`
`XZ PLANE
`MIN. BACKSPIN
`
`
`
`3
`
`2,
`
`HOOK
`COMPENSATION
`
`COMPENSATION
`
`MAX.
`BACKSPIN
`
` Z
`
`TMG1001, Page 4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`‘ Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 4 M15
`
`US 8,142,308 32
`
`Ht SPIN
`
`LOW mA.:./ 2
`
`HI TRAJ./HOOK CONTROL
`
`MAX. BACK SPIN/'
`MIN. PENETRATIONX
`£MAX. BALOONING
`(Xg.Y|. 2;)
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`HEEL
`
`suca CONTROL/
`TOE X H!SPlN
`
`Y
`
`FIGJ3
`
`(><2.Y3.Z53
`M¥N. BACK SPIN/
`MAX. PENETRZ\TlON/
`MIN. BALOONING
`
`MAX. PENETRATION!
`——~—-—-———YZPLANE
`MIN. BACKSPINI
`
`MIN. BALOONWG
`LOW TRAJ.
`
`Z3
`
`Z2
`
`21
`
`HI
`TRAJ
`
`Y3
`
`Y2
`
`FIG. 5
`
`Y1
`
`MAX.
`BACKSPIN/
`Mm,
`PENETRATION
`
`TMG 1001, Page 5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 5 of 15
`
`Us 8,142,308 B2
`
`TMG 1001, Page 6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`. Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 6 of 15
`
`Us 8,142,308 B2
`
`TMG mm, Page 7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 7 of 15
`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`TMG I001, Page 8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 3 of 15
`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`TMG I001, Page 9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 9 of 15
`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`TMG 1001, Page 10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 10 of 15
`
`Us 8,142,308 B2
`
`an
`
`E 3
`
`2
`LL.
`
`I00
`
`H913
`
`TMG I001,Page II
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet. 11 M15
`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`TMG 1001, Page 12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 12 of 15
`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`TMG10OI,Page13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 13 of 15
`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`TMG1001, Page 14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet 14 of 15
`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`
`
`207'
`
`20
`
`FIG.2|
`
`
`
`TMG 1001, Page 15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Mar. 27, 2012
`
`Sheet is of 15
`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`XY PLANE
`
`TMG 1001, Page 16
`
`

`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`1
`SYSTEM OF GOLF‘ CLUB PERFORMANCE
`ENHANCEMENT AND ARTICLES
`RESULTANT THEREFROM
`
`REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
`
`5
`
`This application is a continuation of application Ser. No.
`11/588,992, filed Oct. 27, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,854,667,
`which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No.
`l0/813,899, filed Apr. 3, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,128,660 10
`B2, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No.
`10/383,532, entitled Multi-purpose Golf Club, filed Mar. 10,
`2003, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in part of
`application Ser. No. 09/849,522, filed on May 7, 2001, now
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,530,848, which claims the benefit under 35
`USC ll9(e) ofProvisional Application No. 60/205,250, filed
`May I9, 2000. Each of said applications is incorporated by
`reference herein.
`
`l5
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`
`A. Area of Invention
`
`The invention relates to a system of selectably varying the
`center ofgravity and distribution ofweighting iii a void space
`in the head of a golf club.
`B. PriorArt
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`2
`
`counter-clockwise spin and back spin ofthe ball so propelled
`by the golfclub. Said patent further sets forth the variability of
`a weight element at any point on top ofthe sole plate to adjust
`the weight ofthe golfclub to induce a more desirable ball spin
`to thereby accomplish an improved trajectory of ball flight.
`My said U.S. patent also teaches theuse ofa selectable “inner
`concave surfaced weight" to achieve vertical (Z) axis, as well
`as sole plate level (xy plane) adjustability. As shown in FIG.
`4 thereof, said FIG. 4 illustrates a sole plate having an inner
`concave surfaced weight as viewed from above. The sole
`plate has a rim which matches a ledge shown in FIG. 3
`thereof. Four apertures are formed through the rim to secure
`the selectable concave weight to the rim.
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,991,558 (2006) to Beach relates toa limited
`sub-set of the present system.
`The present inventive system reflects my discovery that
`many more options for positioning ofthe CG and distribution
`ofweight or weights within the head of a golfclub, whether
`that club comprises an iron, a wood, or a hybrid thereof, exist
`in positioning, behind the club face, selectable high density
`weighting elements at coordinates of an orthonormal matrix
`up to 27 potential locations in a void space, to compensate for
`physiologic imperfections in one or more characteristic ofthe
`swing of a golfer. The angulation and curvature of the club
`face relative to said matrix provides a yet fitrther performance
`enhancing parameter that co—acts with weight elements
`within said matrix.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
`
`Golfing enthusiasts appreciate the dynamic characteristics
`ofgolfirons and woods and the mamrerin wlrichperformance
`of the same will vary as a consequence of physiologic char-
`acteristics ofa particular golfer. Such physiologic factors will
`afi'ect a Variety of ball strike parameters including, without
`limitation, loft trajectory, inertial spin, range hook and slice.
`Use ofa cavitywithin the upper surface ofa putter type golf
`club in to vary the weight or balance of the heel, toe and
`bottom portions of a putter club head, and certain uses of 35
`weights therein, is recognized in U.S. Pat. No. 5,683,307
`(1997) to Rife, entitled Putter Type Golf Club Head with
`Balance Weight Configuration and Complementary Ball
`Stril-ting Face. U.S. Pat. No. 3,841,640 (1974) to Gaulocher,
`entitled GolfPutter, reflects a rudimentary recognition of the 4-0
`importance of proper weighting within the head of a golf
`putter to compensate for physiologic needs and preferences
`ofa golfer. Such approaches in the prior art have attempted to
`address one or anotherproblem associated with the golfstrike
`characteristics or, in some cases, the characteristics ofthe golf 45
`range surface. As is well known, golfing greens are replete
`with imperfections which affect bail speed, spin and roll.
`Accordingly, a wide range of both bail flight and ground
`surface performance factors can be attributed to weight dis-
`tribution and position of the CG within the club head.
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,909,029 (1990) to Sinclair employs an
`upper void space to modify the aerodynamics of the head of
`the golf ball.
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,947,840 (1999) to Ryan relates to a golf
`club head havinga single plane ofa triangular shape by which 55
`weight distribution may be accomplished.
`Published U.S. SpecificatiouUS 2003/01 99331AI teaches
`use of a re-positionable weight chip in a golf club to modify
`club performance.
`My issued U.S. Pat. No. 6,530,848 (2003) sets forth the use
`ofweighting options for the center ofgravity ("CG") ofa club
`resultant from a substantial hollowing out of or void space in
`a top or predominant portion of the club head, as a manufac-
`turing step. Said void space teaches the significance ofplace-
`merit of the position of a weight within such hollowed—out
`portion to effect a variety of ball strike and flight character-
`istics including increase or decrease of clockwise spin,
`
`50
`
`55
`
`The performance ofgolfclub heads made ofwood, plastic,
`metal, and composites thereofmay be enhanced through the
`provision of a void space behind a face plate and above the
`sole portion, to decrease club weight and provide single or
`combinations of selectable weighting elements within volu-
`metric coordinates ofan orthonormal matrix within said void
`space. Said coordinates are provided as a function of ball
`strike, flight analysis and physiologic or computerized obser-
`vation of the golf strike swing. In a basic embodiment, hall
`flight may be affected by varying tl1e mass ofa selectable sole
`portion which may be uniformly or variably weighted from
`the club hose] to toe end. Weight of uniform or non-uniform
`distribution may also selectably be provided within the void
`space behind the face plate and above ll1e fixed sole portion.
`The angle and curvature oftl1e face plate may also be varied.
`The invention more particularly comprises a virtual X,Y, Z
`orthonormal coordinate system in which a sole portion is
`substantially congruent with a bottom-most XY plane
`thereof, in which a face plate is substantially congment with
`a forward-most XZ plane thereof, and in which a heel and
`hose] side of the club head intersects a ‘(Z plane thereof
`substantially at an origin ofthe coordinate system, and further
`in which an increase in X-axis value corresponds to a direc-
`tion ofa toe of the club head, an increase Y-axis value corre-
`sponds in direction to a rear of the club head, and an increase
`in Z-axis value corresponds to an increase in height above the
`sole portion. The golf club adjustment system comprises: (1)
`a club head having a void space behind the face plate of said
`club and above the sole portion thereof which void space is
`substarrtiallyconformal in geometry and volume to that ofthe
`club head; and (2) two selectable weighting means in which at
`least one weighting means thereof is not contiguous to any
`part ofthe face plate in which aselectedvalue upon theY-axis
`in any one of the weighting means does not equal a selected
`value ofY for a second ofthe weighting means, the selectable
`means comprising any two of: (a) weighting means substan-
`tially within the void space between a lowerY, lower Z coor-
`
`TMG100l,Pagc l7
`
`

`
`3
`
`US 8,142,308 B2
`
`4
`
`dinate, to increase backspin, to a higherY, higher Z coordinate
`to decrease backspin; (b) weighting means substantially
`within the void spacebetween a higherY, higherZ coordinate,
`to maximize penetration, to a lowerY, lower Z coordinate, to
`minimize penetration; (c) weighting means stlbstantially
`within the void space between a lower Z coordinate, to
`increase trajectory, to a higher Z-coordinate to decrease tra-
`jectory; or (d) weighting means substantially within the void
`space at a lower X coordinate, to compensate for hook, to a
`higher X-coordinate to compensate for slice.
`In a further embodiment of the invention, a sole portion
`intersects a bottom-n1ostXZ plane thereof, in which a face
`plate intersects a forward-most XY plane thereof, and in
`which a heel and hose] side of said club head intersects aYZ
`plane thereof substantially at an origin of said coordinate
`system, and further in which an increase in X-axis value
`corresponds to a direction of a toe of said club head, an
`increase in Y-axis value corresponds in direction to a rear of
`said club head, and an increase in Z-axis value corresponds to
`an increase in height above said bottom-most XY plane. The
`golf club adjustment system comprises: (a) a club head hav-
`ing a void space behind said face portion of said club and
`above said sole portion thereof; (b) weighting means substan-
`tially within said void space between a higher Y, higher Z
`coordinate, to minimize ballooning, to a lower Y, lower Z
`coordinate to maximize said ballooning; and (c) weighting
`means substantially within said void space between a lower
`X—coordinate, to compensate for hook, to a higher X-coordi-
`nate to compensate for slice.
`It is an object ofthe invention to provide a golfclub having
`a weight modifiable club head, inclusive of interchangeable
`sole portion and/or weighting elements, which express a uni-
`versal method of golf club head modification to account for
`ball backspin, penetration, trajectory, and hook or slice.
`It is another object to provide :1 wooden, plastic or metal
`golf club having a head with a hollowed out portion behind
`the face plate and above a uniform or non-uniform sole por-
`tion.
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`It is a fitrther object of the invention to provide a golf ciub
`head with a hollowed-out void space, made during produc-
`tion, to a golfer's preference, and fiirther providing a modi-
`fiable sole portion, with or without addition integral or added
`weights selectable positioned in volumetric coordinates of a
`virtual matrix about said void space.
`It is a further object to provide a club head, modified with
`a hollow interi