Appeal No. 1999-2365
Application 08/569,999
or to provide additional warmth for a user
as desired (see Prandina, column 1, lines
15-26 and column 2, lines 24-26).
After fully considering the record in light of the arguments
presented in appellant's brief and reply brief, and in the
examiner's answer, we conclude that this rejection is not well
taken, for a number of reasons.
First, the device disclosed by Buchman, while called
"a blanket-like wrap" (col. 1, line 5), is more in the nature
of a garment, i.e., a "comforter-robe" (col. 1, lines 8, 30,
33, etc.). On the other hand, the Prandina reference concerns
a blanket assembly to be used on a bed (col. 1, line 7),
whereby two blankets can be joined together at their sides to
fit a wider bed, and/or can be attached together in a double
layer. Given this disparity between the types of devices
disclosed by these two references, we do not consider that one
of ordinary skill would derive from Prandina a suggestion to
modify the Buchman comforter-robe in the manner proposed by
the examiner.
Second, even if Buchman and Prandina were combined,
we do not consider that the resulting structure would contain
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007