Appeal No. 97-2226 Page 14
Application No. 08/203,789
view of the overall teachings of the applied prior art which
suggests providing closable openings at wherever a need might
arise.
Claims 2, 3, 22 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Dye and
Boettcher as applied above with respect to claim 1 and further in
view of Spriggs.
In addition to the differences set forth above with respect
to claims 1, 10, 11 and 30, it is our opinion, based on our
analysis and review of Thompson, that the only additional
difference is the limitation that the garment be made of a fabric
selected from the group consisting of polypropylene; a water-
proof, breathable fabric; an insulating, water absorbent fabric;
silk; wool; cotton; rayon and polyester (claim 2) or from
polypropylene (claims 3, 22 and 31).
Spriggs discloses a hospital gown 10. Spriggs teaches that
the gown may be made of any of the materials heretofore well
known to the art for hospital gown use. Spriggs discloses
(column 3, line 64, to column 4, line 6) that
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007