Appeal No. 1999-2537 Page 9
Application No. 08/619,269
of the term "the height of protective sport goggles" is that
the height of the eye opening is less than the tallest height
of sport goggles.
We also agree with the appellants that the other
independent claims on appeal (i.e., claims 23, 25, 26 and 27)
are not indefinite for the reasons set forth above with
respect to claim 22.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15 to 18, 22, 23
and 25 to 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed
The obviousness issue
We sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15
to 18, 22, 23 and 25 to 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3(...continued)
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007