Appeal No. 96-1726
Application 08/146,498
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We reverse the examiner’s rejections of appellant’s
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, we note that each of claims 1 and 7
addresses a surgical gown that requires, inter alia, three
particular layers, i.e., an outer layer of a liquid repellant,
moisture vapor transmitting material, an inner layer of
breathable material, and an intermediate layer of liquid proof
material interposed between the outer and inner layers. As is
evident from appellant’s specification (pages 7 through 9), the
material of each of the layers was known at the time of the
present invention.
In rejecting the claimed three layer surgical gown, the
examiner proposes to modify the two layer surgical gown of Tames
based upon the teachings of the three layer gowns of Holt and
Schwarze. The surgical gown of Tames (Figures 1 and 4) is
characterized by a front panel (outer layer) 15 of any suitable
2(...continued)
disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342,
344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007