Appeal No. 2006-1887
Application No. 10/725,837
“configured to be slid over substantially the entire length of the first sleeve [TPS]”
limitation of claims 1 and 5.
Myers discloses an elastic bandage having a body 1 “made of any suitable
material, as rubber or other flexible substance or compounds, that may be rendered
plastic in the process of construction” (p. 1, ll. 35-38), the body 1 being provided
with a series of irregular inner surfaces 3 or inner raised parts where extra pressure
is needed (p. 1, ll. 40-41 and 85-86), and a series of outer encircling bands 4,
“which may either be integral or separately applied in order to give greater
compression than the bandage alone at any desired point” (p. 1, ll. 42-46). The
examiner finds that Myers teaches a system for applying pressure comprising a
first innermost therapeutic pressure sleeve (bandage 1) having a foam lining with
ridges 3 formed over an inner surface (answer, p. 4) and the appellant does not
dispute that finding. The examiner then makes a determination that it would have
been obvious to modify Deasy to include foam material for lining the inner surface
of the first sleeve (arm portion 18) for the purpose of providing comfortable
cushioning for the wearer during use and also “to include a foam lining with ridges
formed over an inner surface, as taught and suggested by Myers,” for the purpose
of increasing the effectiveness of the compression therapy in the treatment of
edema and improving the user’s stamina (answer, p. 4).
The appellant argues that the localized compression function of Myers is far
different from and antithetical to both the appellant’s invention and that of Deasy
and that, consequently, the combined teachings of the references actually teach
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013