Appeal No. 2001-0599 Page 8
Application No. 08/555,198
Goldberg et al. and Dangmann [sic] et al. would likely yield a
functional glove but would certainly not teach the present invention.
In short, the cited references do not render the present invention
obvious.
Appeal Brief, pages 9-10. In a nutshell, the references cited by the examiner do
not disclose or suggest all the limitations of the instant claims, nor do they
provide a motivation to combine those limitations that are disclosed. The
references therefore do not support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Summary
We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Sakamoto
because the prior art reference discloses all of the limitations of the claimed
invention. However, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the
examiner has not shown that the cited references would have suggested the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, claims 27 and
38-41 are free of any pending rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007