Appeal No. 98-2031
Application 08/794,154
page 6 of the answer, we will summarily sustain this rejection.
We next look to the examiner's prior art rejection of appealed claims 1, 2, 37, 38, 40, 41, 50,
58 through 60, 64 and 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Runckel in view of Chen.
Runckel discloses a pair of swim goggles having a frame (e.g., 14, 16, 18) including a transparent
portion (14) adapted to cover at least one of the user’s eyes; and a conformable pad (42) affixed to the
frame. The conformable pad (42) is said to compensate for small variations between the slope of the
bone (e.g., 36) and the slope of the rim of the goggles (col. 3, lines 55-59), while the goggles and pad
together are intended to “seal the swimmer’s eyes from the external environment without inducing a
significant suction effect” (col. 1, lines 53-55). Runckel, however, says nothing concerning the material
from which the conformable pad (42) is made, and thus differs from independent claims 1 and 37 on
appeal in that it does not teach or suggest a sealing pad comprising “a compliant and resiliently
deformable gelatinous elastomer” as is required in those claims.
Recognizing this deficiency in Runckel, the examiner has turned to Chen, relying upon this
patent for its teachings of a compliant and resiliently deformable gelatinous elastomer used to make a
myriad of products, such as medical and sport health care products, articles useful for noise and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007