Appeal No. 97-2226 Page 7
Application No. 08/203,789
includes "two separate bottom pieces for covering lower
extremities of the patient."
All the rejections set forth by the examiner rely on Dye for
the suggestion of modifying Boettcher "to include a bottom piece
with openings" (answer, p. 3).
The appellants argue (brief, p. 7) that they claim a garment
which includes, inter alia, "two bottom pieces which are
separate, not unitary (See specification, page 8, lines 13-15)."
The appellants then contrast this claimed feature with Dye's
pants 14 which "consists of two leg portions interconnected to
one another by means of a lower torso portion integral with each
leg portion."
The examiner responded (answer, pp. 7-8) to this argument by
stating that
[a]pplicant is arguing more limiting than what has been
claimed. The claims do not recite the bottom pieces of two
non-connected pieces. Conventionally, speaking when one
speaks of a bottom piece was shown the same include two
separate pieces joined by a seam. Applicant's arguments,
are therefore moot because the terms "non-connected bottom
pieces" are not in the claim.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007