Appeal No. 97-0828
Application 08/445,540
recited in claim 1 would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of this claim.
Nor shall we sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of dependent claims 4 and 5 as being unpatentable
over Hale in view of Bowen, Finken and Copeland or the
standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of dependent claim 6 as being unpatentable
over Hale in view of Bowen, Finken and Zide. In short,
Copeland’s disclosure of an adjustable helmet suspension means
and Zide’s disclosure of a helmet chin strap do not cure the
above noted deficiencies of the basic Hale, Bowen and Finken
combination with respect to the subject matter recited in
parent claim 1.
The following rejection is entered pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Claim 8, and claims 10 through 13 which depend therefrom,
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter the appellant regards as the invention. The
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007