Appeal No. 1997-2770
Application No. 08/329,994
Claims 1 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Richter.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 9,
mailed September 16, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant's
Brief (Paper No. 8, filed August 22, 1996) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 10, filed November 18, 1996) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 19.
Each of the independent claims, claims 1, 4, 7, 12, and
15, recites a wrist encircling means. The examiner asserts
(Answer, page 3) that Richter's element 3 meets this
limitation. However, as pointed out by appellant (Brief,
pages 9-10), element 3 is a lower arm member, and does not
encircle the wrist. As shown in Richter's Figure 1, element 3
ends above the wrist and is attached to the glove portion of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007