Appeal No. 97-0115
Application 08/220,341
considered as the upper edge of the second part of the blank
and edge 52a as the bottom edge of the first part.
As for claim 11 which depends from claim 4, both side
edges of such second part of Artzt’s blank extend inwardly
from such upper edge to the center part of the blank in the
sense that they extend from one end of the blank “inwardly”
toward the center of the blank. Thus, the appellants’
argument that Artzt does not disclose this feature is not well
taken (see page 7 in the brief). 3
With regard to the standing rejection of claims 15 and
16, which depend from claim 12, the appellants’ argument that
“there is no motivation to make the Artzt garment out of any
material potentially described in Brock” (brief, page 12) is
not persuasive. The desirable characteristics attributed by
Brock to the material disclosed therein would have provided
3The appellants’ additional argument that the rejection
of claim 11 should be reversed on procedural grounds because
the examiner did not specifically discuss claim 11 in the
final rejection (see page 6 in the brief) is also
unconvincing. Any such “procedural” oversight in the final
rejection was rectified by the examiner in the answer (see
page 8).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007