Appeal No. 1999-1491
Application No. 08/386,670
With regard to the examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as
being obvious over Ledesma in view of Deck and further in view
of Solin, the examiner recognizes that Ledesma lacks first and
second pad sections as claimed and the claimed first and
second pockets of the casing which are adapted to receive the
first and second pad sections. However, although the examiner
relies on Solin to “bridge the gap” between the claimed
invention and the patent to Ledesma, the examiner has failed
to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
divided the cushion (10) of Ledesma transversely of the
pyramidal pad members (16) and also failed to point out any
part of Solin’s disclosure which discusses the presence of
pockets. Like appellant, we see no reason, teaching or
suggestion in Solin which would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art to divide the cushion of Ledesma in the particular
manner required in claim 11 on appeal. Moreover, while the
appellant provides no direct comment regarding the presence or
absence of pockets in the prior art applied by the examiner,
we must reverse the examiner who explicitly pointed out the
deficiency in the primary reference and then failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness since the missing
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007