Appeal No. 98-2031
Application 08/794,154
pad to the frame. It is clear from the drawings and disclosure of Runckel that the pad (42) is affixed to
the rim of the frame and is not removable therefrom. Nor do we find the examiner assertions spanning
pages 5 and 6 of the answer at all helpful in this obviousness determination, since they do not appear to
be applicable
to the particular factual situation presented by claim 59 on appeal. Thus, the examiner’s rejection of
claim 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained, while the examiner’s rejection of claim 59 will not be
sustained.
The next rejection for our consideration is that of claims 61 through 63 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nishiyama and Chen. The examiner’s
statement of this rejection on page 6 of the answer makes note of the fact that claim 61 depends from
independent claim 1 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 1, and yet the examiner has not
rejected claim 1 on this same basis. Dependent claim 61 adds to the subject matter of claim 1 that the
frame is sized to fit outside the orbits of the user’s eyes, while dependent claim 62 adds to claim 1 that
the frame is flexible and conforms generally to the shape of the user’s face. After reviewing the
collective teachings of Nishiyama and Chen, we agree with the examiner that the goggles as set forth in
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007