Appeal No. 95-4379
Application 08/116,753
section is a concern, we conclude that the examiner’s proposed
modification of Matsumoto in view of Takada to arrive at the
claimed warp and weft limitation found in the last paragraph
of claim 2 is based on the use of impermissible hindsight
knowledge gleaned from reading appellants' disclosure rather
than anything that is fairly suggested by the collective
teachings of Matsumoto and Takada. In this regard, we
conclude that Takada at best would have suggested providing
Matsumoto with inflation control straps, and fastening members
therefor made of fabric oriented to lie on
a bias to such inflation control straps. This, of course,
would not correspond to the warp and weft limitations found in
the last paragraph of claim 2.
We have also carefully reviewed the Kami reference
additionally relied upon by the examiner in support of the
rejection, but find nothing therein that makes up for the
deficiencies of Matsumoto and Takada noted above. It follows
that the standing § 103 rejection of claims 2-5 as being
unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Takada and Kami cannot
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007