Appeal No. 1998-3367 Application No. 08/545,717 Since appellants have not demonstrated or even alleged that the specifically claimed stiffness range set forth in claim 1 produces unexpected results, it is our conclusion that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to determine a workable or even optimum stiffness range for the waist belt of Gipson and thereby produce the garment of claim 1. In light of the above, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Gipson. We will also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4-7 and 9-13 as being unpatentable over Gipson, since appellants concede that these dependent claims stand or fall with claim 1. See page 4 of the main brief. Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and adds that one of the belt portions has an elongated hook element attachment strip attached thereto and lying with a larger dimension thereof in the belt width direction whereby the larger dimension of the attachment strip has a length of between 25% and 75% of the belt width. Appellants' specification explains that the dimension of the attachment strip that aligns with the width 14Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007