Games using tangible projectile – Golf – Ball
Reexamination Certificate
1999-12-16
2002-03-19
Ricci, John A. (Department: 3712)
Games using tangible projectile
Golf
Ball
C473S354000, C473S353000, C473S365000, C473S377000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06358160
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
As indicated in the September 1996 issue of “Golf Digest”, hitting golf balls into the water occurs with a great degree of frequency. As a result, an entire industry has developed in the recovery of golf balls which are then resold despite the fact that the ball has spent a fair amount of time in the water. While the golf ball cover seems to be fairly impervious, the question has become as to the effect of the immersion of the ball over a number of days at the bottom of a pond laying in the mud.
As will be appreciated, golf balls come in two varieties, a three-piece ball and a two-piece ball. According to the above article, when such balls were tested using a robotic hitting machine and a standard length metal driver with a 9.53 degree loft and an extra stiff shaft, with a club head speed 93.7 miles per hour and a launch angle of 9.0 degrees and with a spin rate of 2,800 rpm, the result for a three-piece ball was a difference in carry of 6 yards after an eight day immersion, a 12 yard loss after three months and a 15 yard loss after six months.
For a two-piece ball, the amount of carry was 6 yards shorter and after having been immersed for eight days was a total of 9.1 yards shorter. While for two-piece balls being in the water typically makes the ball harder in terms of compression, it also shows down the coefficient of restitution or the ability of the ball to regain its roundness after impact. The above factors make the ball fly shorter. Three-piece balls have been found to get softer in terms of compression, but they also fly shorter according to the above-mentioned article.
Whatever the results of the immersion of a golf ball in a pond, the characteristics of the ball in flight are altered by the immersion. The problem therefore becomes one of being able to determine when a golf ball has been immersed so that it may be rejected in favor of a new golf ball.
Note that golf ball construction is shown in the following U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,609,953; 5,586,950; 5,538,794; 5,496,035; 5,480,155; 5,415,937; 5,314,187; 5,096,201; 5,006,297; 5,002,281; 4,690,981; 4,984,803; 4,979,746; 4,955,966; 4,931,376; 4,919,434; 4,911,451;.4,884,814; 4,863,167; 4,848,770; 4,792,141; 4,715,607; 4,714,253; 4,688,801; 4,683,257; 4,625,964; 4,483,537; 4,436,276; 4,431,193; 4,266,772; 4,065,537; 3,704,209; 3,572,722; 3,264,272.
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
In order to alleviate the problem of having to deal with balls which may have been immersed and recovered, in the subject invention a golf ball is provided which changes color, has imprinted writing which disappears or has some other indicia which changes after immersion to indicate that the ball has been immersed.
In the present invention, in one embodiment, imprints on the ball are made with water-activated ink which vanishes when it is exposed to water for long periods of time. In another embodiment, imprints on the ball are made with water-activated transparent ink which appears when it is exposed to water for long periods of time. The invention is thus used as an indicator of balls previously exposed to water to for one to several days in the bottom of a lake, pond, pool or other body of water. Such an indicator is used to alert golfers to potential changes in ball properties due to long water exposure times.
REFERENCES:
patent: 3264272 (1966-08-01), Rees
patent: 3572722 (1971-03-01), Harrison et al.
patent: 3784209 (1974-01-01), Berman et al.
patent: 4065537 (1977-12-01), Miller et al.
patent: 4266772 (1981-05-01), Martin et al.
patent: 4431193 (1984-02-01), Nesbitt
patent: 4436276 (1984-03-01), Donahue
patent: 4483537 (1984-11-01), Hanada et al.
patent: 4625964 (1986-12-01), Yamada
patent: 4679795 (1987-07-01), Melvin et al.
patent: 4683257 (1987-07-01), Kakiuchi et al.
patent: 4688801 (1987-08-01), Reiter
patent: 4690981 (1987-09-01), Statz
patent: 4714253 (1987-12-01), Nakahara et al.
patent: 4715607 (1987-12-01), Llort et al.
patent: 4792141 (1988-12-01), Llort
patent: 4848770 (1989-07-01), Shama
patent: 4863167 (1989-09-01), Matsuki et al.
patent: 4884814 (1989-12-01), Sullivan
patent: 4911451 (1990-03-01), Sullivan et al.
patent: 4919434 (1990-04-01), Saito
patent: 4931376 (1990-06-01), Ikematsu et al.
patent: 4955966 (1990-09-01), Yuki et al.
patent: 4979746 (1990-12-01), Gentiluomo
patent: 4984803 (1991-01-01), Llort et al.
patent: 5002281 (1991-03-01), Nakahara et al.
patent: 5006297 (1991-04-01), Brown et al.
patent: 5096201 (1992-03-01), Egashira et al.
patent: 5098104 (1992-03-01), Kane
patent: 5314187 (1994-05-01), Proudfit
patent: 5415937 (1995-05-01), Cadorniga
patent: 5480155 (1996-01-01), Molitor et al.
patent: 5496035 (1996-03-01), Gilchrist et al.
patent: 5538794 (1996-07-01), Cadorniga et al.
patent: 5586950 (1996-12-01), Endo
patent: 5609953 (1997-03-01), Tamura
patent: 5823891 (1998-10-01), Winskowicz
patent: 5902192 (1999-05-01), Kashiwagi et al.
patent: 5938544 (1999-08-01), Winskowicz
patent: 06248207 (1994-06-01), None
patent: WO 99/17844 (1999-04-01), None
Hale and Dorr LLP
Performance Dynamics LLC
Ricci John A.
LandOfFree
Golf ball with water immersion indicator does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Golf ball with water immersion indicator, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Golf ball with water immersion indicator will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2857295