Appeal No. 98-1242 Page 9
Application No. 08/498,884
modification. The same comments apply to independent claim 10,
which also contains this structure.
The teachings of Ballard and Travers therefore fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter recited in claim 5, its dependent claim 6, and
claim 10, and we will not sustain the rejection of them.
Claim 8 stands rejected as being unpatentable over
Ballard, alone. This claim further defines the features of the
second strap recited in claim 2, stating that it forms an ulnar
wrist stabilization strap extending away from the dispersion
pad for attachment to the wrist portion of the device. In our
view, Ballard’s strap 10 complies with these requirements, and
thus this reference establishes a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claim 8. We
therefore will sustain this rejection.
Summary
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 7 as being anticipated by
Ballard is sustained.
The rejection of claims 5, 6 and 10 as being unpatentable
over Ballard in view of Travers is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007