Appeal No. 2002-1250 Page 9
Application No. 09/200,057
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) that a head band using materials with
two different coefficients of friction was not enabled by the specification. We disagree.
The specification (p. 6) clearly teaches (1) a head band using soft vinyl for the friction
member and PVC for the rigid guarding member; and (2) that the friction member has a
higher coefficient of friction than the guarding member (i.e., the first coefficient of
friction being greater than the second coefficient of friction). This, is sufficient, in our
view, to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention from the
disclosure coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1,
3, 4, 6 to 9, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness rejection utilizing Ryan
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6 to 9, 18 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Mitchell and Horn.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591,
18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007