Appeal No. 95-1064
Application 07/995,347
Appealed claim 10 is representative of the claimed
subject matter. A copy of this claim, as it appears in the
appendix to appellant’s brief, is appended to this decision.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of obviousness in support of his rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Damico 4,500,316 Feb. 19, 1985
Smith 5,188,103 Feb. 23, 1993
(Filed July 29, 1991)
WarmGel Brochure, “The Prism Infant Heel Warmer with WarmGel”,
Prism Technologies (1991).
Claims 10, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the Warmgel
publication in view of the Damico patent, and claims 11, 14,
16, 18 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Warmgel in view of Damico and Smith. In2
support of these rejections, the examiner concludes that the
teachings of Damico would have made it obvious to provide the
Warmgel heat pack with a folded adhesive tape, and that the
teachings of Smith would have made in obvious to provide the
2In addition to rejecting claim 11 on the combined teachings of
Warmgel, Damico and Smith, the examiner inadvertently included claim 11
with claim 10 in the rejection based only on Warmgel and Damico. It is
apparent, however, that the examiner considered the Smith patent
necessary to support the rejection of claim 11.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007