Appeal No. 97-0115
Application 08/220,341
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
alternatively wear the garment with the slit toward the front
or rear as shown by the above three references depending on
the preference of the wearer and to accommodate the wearer’s
desires” (answer, page 5). The teachings of Coven and Zimmon,
however, would have conveyed to the artisan that garments of
the type disclosed by Artzt may be worn with their overlapping
panels at the wearer’s back. We would also note in passing
that it is not apparent how the gown set forth in independent
claims 1 and 12 differs from the garment disclosed by Coven.
With regard to the standing rejection of independent
claim 4, the appellants contend (see pages 5 and 6 in the
answer) that Artzt does not meet the claim limitation reciting
that “the length of the upper edge of the second part is
greater than the length of the bottom edge of the first part.”
As shown in Exhibit 1 appended to the appellants’ brief,
however, the length of edge 54a on Artzt’s garment blank is
greater than the length of edge 52a. For reasons similar to
those discussed above in connection with the intended use
aspects of the appealed claims, Artzt’s edge 54a can be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007