Appeal No. 1998-1775
Application 08/249,611
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 3 and 5 through 8
dependent therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nash in view of Martin.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 9 through
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nash in
view of Martin as applied to claims 1, 3 and 5 through 8 and
further in view of Thomsen, as Thomsen like Nash and Martin
does not disclose, teach or suggest a support having one
outwardly inclined end.
In regard to this rejection as it is directed to
independent claim 14, we note that claim 14 requires that the
support comprises an inner cushion made of a foam having a
density to resists bending. The examiner states:
. . . the nonbendable foam
support of the present invention
serves the same function as the
rigid support taught by Nash.
Since Nash encourages the use of
cushion for supporting the
forearm of the user, therefore to
modify the material of one
support for another is [an]
obvious substitution, especially
since both support[s] perform the
same function. [Examiner’s answer
at page 7].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007