Appeal No. 97-2226 Page 9
Application No. 08/203,789
pieces for covering lower extremities of the patient since Dye
teaches only a single bottom piece for covering the lower
extremities of the patient.
Since all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 22 are
not suggested by the applied prior art, we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection of appealed claims 1 and 22, or claims 2, 3,
10, 11, 30 and 31 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
New grounds of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new grounds of rejection.
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Dye and6
Boettcher.
Thompson discloses a sectional garment for use upon persons
who have sustained an injury or upon whom operations are to be or
6The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007