Appeal No. 1999-1491
Application No. 08/386,670
feature was never taught. Accordingly, we reverse the
examiner’s rejection of claim 11. Since claim 12 depends from
claim 11 and stands or falls with claim 11, we reverse the
rejection of claim 12 also.
The examiner also rejects independent claim 13 as being
unpatentable over Ledesma in view of Deck and Solin. Since
claim 13 also recites the particulars with regard to the
folding of the cushion about a line transversely of the
trough-shaped pads sections and first and second pockets of
the casing being adapted to receive the first and second pad
sections, the comments set forth in the previous paragraph
apply equally to claim 13 and thus, we reverse the examiner’s
rejection of claim 13. We also reverse the examiner’s
rejections of claims 14 through 22, all of which depend from
claim 13.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007