Appeal No. 97-0771
Application No. 08/405,385
prior art waterproof trousers and the like lack adequate
ventilation and therefore may become too hot and restrictive
(column 1, lines 58-60; column 2, lines 8-10). To overcome
this alleged deficiency of the prior art, Boll’s garment is
"open faced" (i.e., without a front panel) to provide adequate
ventilation and prevent overheating. See column 2, lines 8-10
and lines 56-58.
We take up first for consideration the examiner’s
determination that it would have been obvious to modify
Finlay’s garment in view of Boll to provide material layers as
claimed. It is not clear precisely how the examiner intends
to "incorporate" the teachings of Boll into Finlay’s garment.
Presumably, the examiner intends to make one or the other of
the panels 4, 6 of Finlay of material that forms a moisture
barrier, while making the other one of the panels as a lining
material. Alternatively, it may be that the examiner intends
to modify Finlay by incorporating material that forms a
moisture barrier into only the rear primary flap portion of
one or both of Finlay’s panels 4, 6. In any event, 2
2It is questionable whether that latter modification would
result in the subject matter of claim 15.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007