Appeal No. 96-3830
Application 08/173,065
appellant's specification and claims, the applied references , 3
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We do not sustain the respective rejections of appellant's
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
This panel of the board fully comprehends the examiner's
assessment and application of the applied prior art. However,
for the reasons articulated below, we have concluded that the
evidence of obviousness would not have been suggestive of the
claimed repair patch.
Independent claims 2 and 7 are drawn to a repair patch for
worn or damaged garment pockets. The repair patch comprises,
inter alia, a pocket-like member, heat sensitive glue applied to
the exterior surfaces of the patch (claim 2) and "substantially
In our evaluation of the applied references, we have considered all of3
the disclosure of each reference for what it would have fairly taught one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507,
510 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account
not only the specific teachings of each reference, but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from
the disclosure. See In re Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA
1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007