Appeal No. 1999-0266 Page 6
Application No. 08/290,678
Although the appellant argues that Creper or Schreiber
would not have suggested the modification of Taigen as set
forth by the examiner (final rejection, pp. 2-4), we do not
agree. Creper teaches that his belt is provided with reduced
side sections to accommodate the belt to movement of the
wearer (column 2, lines 10-17). Schreiber teaches that his
belt is provided with reduced side portions to embrace the
sides of the wearer and provide a comfortable conformation to
the body contours (column 3, lines 25-28). In view of the
teaching of either Creper or Schreiber, we consider that it
would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill
to have made the belt of Taigen with reduced side sections in
order to better fit the wearer as suggested and taught by
either Creper or Schreiber.
Having determined that a prima facie case of obviousness
has been established, we now evaluate the evidence directed to
secondary considerations to determine whether it is sufficient
to rebut the prima facie case. In re Piasecki, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007