Appeal No. 2005-0927 Page 5
Application No. 09/954,788
be substantially absent at the fingertip regions, as called for in claims 1 and 8.
Specifically, Barasch is directed to sanitary disposable gloves, not to electrician’s
gloves, and the resin particles therein are not flock. The thin-film pinhole problem
addressed by Barasch is not at issue in the electrician’s gloves of Hutchinson.
In light of the above, we conclude that the examiner’s combination of Hutchinson,
Daum and Barasch is insufficient to establish a prima facie case that the invention
recited in appellants’ claims 1 and 8 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellants’ invention.2 We thus cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 8, or claims 2-6 and 8-13 depending therefrom. The examiner’s
application of Barnett provides no cure for the deficiency in the combination of
Hutchinson, Daum and Barasch. It follows that we also cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 7 and 14, which depend from claims 1 and 8, respectively.
2 It is thus unnecessary for us to discuss the declarations of Nestor Kolcio submitted under 37
CFR § 1.132, copies of which were attached to the brief as Appendices F and G.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007