Appeal No. 97-4042
Application 08/578,248
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mackey and claims 4 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mackey, claim
3 (and claims 4 and 5 by virtue of their dependency thereon)
expressly requires “lengthwise extending edges which are
concave to conform to the contour of the person’s torso . . .”
(emphasis ours). In Mackey, however, the edges are straight
rather than “concave” as claimed. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the rejections of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We now turn to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 6-8 and 11 as being unpatentable over Mackey in view of
Gregg and claim 12 as being unpatentable over Mackey alone.
With respect to claims 6-8 and 11, the examiner has taken the
position that it would have been obvious to provide the tray
of Mackey with a central well in view of the teachings in
Gregg. The examiner also is of the opinion that the
particular configuration of the central well (claim 7) and the
parameters set forth in claims 8 and 12 would have been
obvious.
The appellants disagree, contending that “it is difficult
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007