Appeal No. 96-2455
Application 08/223,323
found in the appeal brief filed October 2, 1995 (Paper No. 24)
and reply brief (Paper No. 26, filed February 12, 1996).
OPINION
After careful consideration of appellants' specifi-
cation and claims, the teachings of the applied references and
the arguments and comments advanced by appellants and the
examiner, it is our determination that the examiner's conclu-
sions of obviousness regarding appellants' claimed subject
matter are unsupported by the applied prior art and the rejec-
tions based thereon will therefore not be sustained.
As the examiner has recognized (answer, page 4),
Schenz discloses, e.g., in Figure 1, a temporary seat cover
comprising a two-layer member having an upper pocket (12) and
a lower pocket (10), however, there is no teaching or sugges-
tion therein of either the tabs located intermediate the upper
and lower pockets or the adhesive means associated with the
tabs and used to secure the seat cover to the seat, as re-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007