Appeal No. 98-1242 Page 8
Application No. 08/498,884
355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966) and In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)).
The first rejection under this section of the statute is
that claims 5, 6 and 10 are unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Ballard and Travers. Claim 5 adds to claim 1 the
requirement that there be a stabilization member mounted on the
hand portion of the glove “at a position oppositely disposed
from said force dispersion pad with the user’s hand disposed
therebetween,” that is, a second pad on the palm portion of the
glove.
Ballard has been described above, and it does not disclose
or teach such a structure. In fact, according to Ballard, the
palm should be “free from padding and unrestricted” (column 2,
line 8). Travers teaches providing a boxer’s hand protector
glove with a pad (17) around which the hand is closed.
However, we agree with the appellant that it would not have
been obvious to add such a pad to the Ballard glove, in view of
Ballard’s explicit teaching that the palm should be free from
just such an element, which would have been a disincentive for
one of ordinary skill in the art to have made such a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007