Appeal No. 2002-1250 Page 11
Application No. 09/200,057
We do not agree with the examiner that the combined teachings of the applied
prior art would have suggested the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Specifically, even if the head guard of Romero were to be modified as proposed by the
examiner (answer, p. 6) it would not arrive at the claimed invention. All the claims
under appeal require the protective body of the head-protecting apparatus to include a
generally rigid guarding member adapted to cover at least a portion of the player's
head. However, this limitation is not suggested by the applied art. The examiner's
position that the claimed generally rigid guarding member is met by Romero's layer 17
is without merit. Romero does not disclose that layer 17 is generally rigid. Romero
does teach (column 3, lines 22-23) that layer 17 can be a soft suede-like material (i.e.,
non-rigid). It follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6 to 9, 18
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Romero in view of Mech
Site, Horn and Rife is reversed.
The obviousness rejection utilizing Ashinoff
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ashinoff in view of Romero and Mech Site.
The basis of this rejection is set forth in the fifth Office action (pp. 7-8) and the
answer (pp. 7-8).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007