Appeal 2007-1323
Application 10/032,701
(Id.) Based on this evidence, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention
would have been an obvious modification of Igaue’s garment as taught by
Van Gompel (Answer 5-6). We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning.
In response, Appellants assert that claim 42 requires a tear strength of
less than about 5 lbf along the line of weakness. (Br. 13). In this regard,
Appellants rely on their arguments relating to claim 11 and assert that Van
Gompel does not make up for the deficiencies in Igaue (id.). Having found
no deficiency in the Examiner’s reliance on Igaue, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ assertion to the contrary. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection
of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 44, 47, and 48 fall together
with claim 42.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and
reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
lbg
BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
P.O. BOX 10395
CHICAGO IL 60610
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: September 9, 2013