Appeal No. 98-1922 Page 13
Application No. 08/253,721
Claim 9 reads as follows:
The slide according to Claim 16 in which the
thickness of the compressible material is a minimum of ½
inch thick.
The examiner determined (answer, p. 5) that it would have
been obvious to make Maeda's synthetic rubber top-surface
component 5 of a closed foam construction, which is an
extremely common inexpensive compressible material, and
relatively hard, in order to avoid abrasion during use. The
examiner also determined (answer, pp. 4 and 5) that, the
hardness as well as the thickness of Maeda's synthetic rubber
top-surface component 5 were obvious matters of design choice.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8-9) that Maeda does not
teach or suggest the claimed limitations and that the examiner
has not provided any support as to why the claimed limitations
would have been obvious matters of design choice.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007