Ex parte POTTER - Page 10

                Appeal No. 96-1881                                                                                                            
                Application No. 08/095,476                                                                                                    

                         The examiner determined on page 5 of the examiner's answer                                                           
                         [i]t would have been obvious in view of Casey and Rudy                                                               
                         '250 to make the bladder of Bolla by sealing the                                                                     
                         chambers after pressurization to a common pressure to                                                                
                         further facilitate manufacturing and increase comfort.                                                               

                         Implicit in this rejection is the examiner's view that the                                                           
                above noted modification of Bolla would result in a method which                                                              
                corresponds to the method recited in claim 40 in all respects.                                                                

                         In applying the test for obviousness,  we reach the          4                                                       
                conclusion that the combined teachings of the applied prior art                                                               
                would have suggested the claimed method to one of ordinary skill                                                              
                in the art at the time of the appellant's invention.  The                                                                     
                arguments advanced by the appellant (brief, pp. 12-20) are                                                                    
                unpersuasive for the following reasons.                                                                                       

                         Contrary to the appellant's argument (brief, pp. 15-18), we                                                          
                find that Casey is analogous art.  The test for non-analogous art                                                             

                         4The 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  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007