Appeal No. 96-1881
Application No. 08/095,476
The examiner determined on page 5 of the examiner's answer
that
[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).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007