Ex parte LOPEZ et al. - Page 2




                Appeal No. 97-0747                                                                                                            
                Application 08/443,258                                                                                                        


                23 through 27.  Claim 22, the only other claim pending in the application, stands objected to as                              

                depending from a rejected base claim.                                                                                         



                         The invention relates to a method for fabricating surgical gowns having circularly-knitted sleeve                    

                cuffs.  A copy of the appealed claims appears in the appendix to the appellants’ main brief (Paper No.                        

                9).                                                                                                                           

                         The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:                                           

                Bausher                                   1,873,811                        Aug. 23, 1932                                      
                Wulsin                            2,414,845                        Jan.   28, 1947                                            
                Tames                                     3,011,172                        Dec.    5, 1961                                    
                Neckerman et al. (Neckerman)              4,752,972                        Jun.   28, 1988                                    


                         The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:                                                 

                         a) claims 15, 16, 18 through 21 and 23 through 27 as being unpatentable over Neckerman in                            

                view of Tames and Bausher; and                                                                                                

                         b) claim 17 as being unpatentable over Neckerman in view of Tames and Bausher, and further                           

                in view of Wulsin.                                                                                                            

                         Reference is made to the appellants’ main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 9 and 11) and to the                          

                examiner’s final rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 7 and 10) for the respective positions of the                               

                appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.  In the main brief, the                            


                                                                      2                                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007