Appeal No. 97-0115
Application 08/220,341
the artisan with ample motivation or suggestion to use such
material to make the garment disclosed by Artzt. 4
In light of the foregoing, the argued differences between
the subject matter recited in claims 1, 4, 11, 12, 15 and 16
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, we
shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of these
claims.
We shall also sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 5 through 8, 10, 13, 14
and 17 since the appellants have not argued such with any
reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand
or fall with the claims from which they depend (see In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987)).
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claim 9. Although Harreld discloses a blank
4In claims 15 and 16, the term “the material” lacks a
proper antecedent basis. This informality is deserving of
correction in the event of further prosecution before the
examiner.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007