Appeal No. 97-3982
Application 08/336,323
reference would have been to remove the massage motor from the
housing of Taylor so that it could
be placed any place along Taylor’s massage heating pad. With
respect to the Westplate reference, we are in agreement with
the examiner that Westplate would have taught making the
heating unit of Taylor of a removable nature for the self-
evident advantage of being able to replace the cooling pack or
heating pack when it is heated or cooled respectively.
However, this teaching of Westplate in no way cures the
deficiencies we have found in the combination of Taylor and
Mack. For this reason, it is our conclusion that the examiner
has used impermissible hindsight in combining the references
to reject claim 1.
We have also reviewed the other prior art references
applied by the examiner in rejecting the dependent claims on
appeal. We find no evidence therein that would have supported
a prima facie case of obviousness with resepct to any of the
appealed claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007