Appeal No. 97-2226 Page 13
Application No. 08/203,789
We agree with the appellants' argument (reply brief, pp. 9-
10) that the recitation "form-fitting" in the preamble of claim 1
must be given weight. However, the recitation "form-fitting"
reads on the garments disclosed by Thompson, Dye and Boettcher.7
Based upon the combined teachings of Thompson, Dye and
Boettcher, it is our opinion that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellants'
invention to have (1) provided Thompson's garment with a hood
piece for covering the head and neck of the patient as suggested
and taught by Boettcher's hood 15 for the self evident advantage
of protecting the head and neck of the patient from low
temperatures and drafts, (2) modified the leg sections of
Thompson to provide openings along the left lateral line of the
left leg portions and along the right lateral line of the right
leg portions as suggested and taught by Dye, and (3) provided a
closable opening along an anterior neck line of the hood piece to
permit access to the front portion of the neck of the wearer in
7Terms in a claim under examination are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and that claim language should be read in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007