Appeal No. 1998-2791 Page 7
Application No. 08/422,676
The examiner recognizes that Whyte differs from the
invention recited in claim 28 in that it lacks at least "a
breakable barrier" separating the gas evolving material (24)
from the activator material (Paper No. 15, page 3), but
asserts that
[t]o employ a liquid impervious breakable packet
containing the liquid, i.e. and thus necessarily a
predetermined quantity or amount thereof, inside a
gas permeable envelope both of which are inside a
gas impermeable inflatable component as taught by
Lieberman and Kato on the Whyte device would be
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view
of the recognition that such a feature would provide
a self inflating structure which is simplified in
structure, economically efficient and/or reliably
inflated while still providing the ability of
individual inflation at the point of use at the time
of need and the desirability of such in any self
inflating device and/or the Whyte device [Paper No.
15, page 4].
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, a prima
facie case of obviousness is established where the reference
teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007