Appeal No. 96-1881
Application No. 08/095,476
opening communicating with separate inlet passageways for each
air pocket and to have then sealed the ends of the inlet
passageways in a small area around the opening.
Lastly, the appellant's argument (brief, pp. 19-20) that
Bolla teaches away from the asserted combination is unpersuasive
for the following reason. First, the examiner's rejection is not
based upon sealing interuptions 50 of Bolla but upon Bolla's
sealed air pockets 3, 4 and 5. Second, while Bolla does
specifically disclose that the air pockets 3, 4 and 5 can be
inflated by means of a syringe or appropriate valve, Bolla also
states the air pockets 3, 4 and 5 can be inflated by a known
method. Thus, we agree with the examiner (answer, p. 9) that6
Bolla would have suggested to one skilled in the art to inflate
his air pockets 3, 4 and 5 by any known method.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that claim 40 is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6See page 1, lines 97-100, of Bolla.
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007