Appeal No. 96-3830
Application 08/173,065
upon appellant's own teaching would have allowed one of ordinary
skill to further modify the pocket repair patch of Buck to
include a heat sensitive glue, based upon the teaching of the
liquid proof seam in the Benstock patent. As a concluding point,
we simply note that the underarm antiseptic deodorant pad of
Henry and the waterproof pocket of Hutchinson do not overcome
the deficiencies of the other applied art.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claims 2 through 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of
Potter, Benstock, and Isoe;
reversed the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Buck in view of Potter, Benstock,
Isoe, and Hutchinson;
reversed the rejection of claims 7 through 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of
Potter, Benstock, and Isoe, and Henry, and
reversed the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Buck in view of Potter, Benstock,
Isoe, Henry, and Hutchinson.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007