Ex parte DONNER - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-0669                                                        
          Application No. 09/198,637                                                  


               relates to a wrist cover and more particularly to a                    
               tubular-shaped wrist cover which may be slipped over                   
               the hand of a person for covering the upper portion of                 
               the person’s hand, the person’s wrist and the lower                    
               portion of the person’s sleeve to prevent snow or the                  
               like from coming into contact with the person’s hand,                  
               wrist and lower arm.                                                   
               A further understanding of the invention can be derived                
          from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced in the             
          appendix to appellant’s brief.                                              
               The references applied in the final rejection are:                     
          Samuels et al. (Samuels)                3,416,518           Dec.            
                                                                      17,             
                                                                      1968            
          Matthews                           5,402,536           Apr.  4,             
                                                                 1995                 
          MacMorran                               5,827,207           Oct.            
                                                                      27,             
                                                                      1998            
          Gregory, minor et al. (Gregory)    5,864,886           Feb.  2,             
                                                                 1999                 
          Ho (Brithis Application)                2,245,477           Jan.            
                                                                      8,              
                                                                      1992            
               Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being              
          anticipated by Samuels.                                                     
               Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                 
          being unpatentable over Samuels in view of Gregory.                         
               Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                 
          unpatentable over Samuels in view of Ho.                                    
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007