Appeal No. 1998-1608 Page 12
Application No. 08/429,926
We agree with the appellant that claim 8 is not obvious
over the applied prior art. In that regard, it is our view
that the teachings of Incorvaia would not have rendered it
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Hicks in a manner to
arrive at the subject matter of claim 8. As stated
previously,
Incorvaia would only have suggested replacing Hicks
releasable fastening means on patches 50a and strip 52
with Velcro strips as taught by Incorvaia's strips 18.®
Thus, it is our opinion that Incorvaia would not have
suggested any changes to Hicks' fastening strap (i.e.,
padded member 60 and straps 62 and 64).
Additionally, the examiner has supplied no evidence (other
than Incorvaia) as to why it would have been obvious to
permanently affix Hicks' fastening strap to either the
overlapping flap or the overlapped flap. The examiner's
statement that such is "a simple matter of design" is not
evidence. Thus, there is no evidence in the applied prior art
that would have rendered it obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified
Hicks' fastening strap so as to arrive at the subject matter
of claim 8.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007