Appeal No. 97-4185 Page 12
Application No. 08/602,274
Dependent claim 9 adds to parent claim 1 the limitation
that the spring member comprises a curved, flat spring member.
Dependent claim 15 adds to parent claim 1 the limitation that
the spring member comprises an extension of the ridge member.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 14) that the examiner has
not shown any prior art teachings of the limitations of claims
9 or 15. We do not agree. As to claim 9, Sutton's rib 50
(i.e., spring member) connecting thumb member 36 to the palm
supporting portion 12 is shown in Figure 1 as being a curved,
flat spring member. Accordingly, the combined teachings of
Ross and Sutton would have suggested using a curved, flat
spring member to connect Ross's thumb-supporting element to
the palm-supporting area. As to claim 15, it is our
determination that the combined teachings of Ross and Sutton
would have suggested that the connecting rib be a continuation
of the peripheral ridge member provided by Ross. Accordingly,
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 9 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claims 3, 4 and 12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007