Appeal No. 1998-3367
Application No. 08/545,717
Since appellants have not demonstrated or even alleged
that the specifically claimed stiffness range set forth in
claim
1 produces unexpected results, it is our conclusion that it
would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to
determine a workable or even optimum stiffness range for the
waist belt of Gipson and thereby produce the garment of claim
1.
In light of the above, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Gipson. We will also sustain the rejection
of claims 2, 4-7 and 9-13 as being unpatentable over Gipson,
since appellants concede that these dependent claims stand or
fall with claim 1. See page 4 of the main brief.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and adds that one of the
belt portions has an elongated hook element attachment strip
attached thereto and lying with a larger dimension thereof in
the belt width direction whereby the larger dimension of the
attachment strip has a length of between 25% and 75% of the
belt width. Appellants' specification explains that the
dimension of the attachment strip that aligns with the width
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007