Appeal No. 2003-1119
Application 09/756,588
anticipated by Meengs, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
In light of appellant’s grouping of claims 1 through 4
together as noted on page 4 of the brief, we would be justified
in concluding that claims 2 through 4 should be considered to
fall with claim 1, from which they depend. However, since
appellant has also separately mentioned claim 3 in the brief
(page 4), we feel compelled to address that claim separately.
Claims 2 and 4, however, are considered to fall with claim 1 and
the examiner’s rejection of those claims is accordingly
sustained.
As noted on page 4 of the brief, claim 3 adds the
requirement that the leg-covering portion of appellant’s sock
include the foldable outer cuff “formed integrally therewith.” In
both the final rejection (page 4) and the answer (page 4) the
examiner has contended that the inner and outer cuffs of the sock
seen in Meengs are part of the leg portion (3) and are integrally
formed. Appellant has provided no argument to the contrary. Our
reading of the very short specification of Meengs and review of
Figures 1-5 of the drawings therein bears out the examiner’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007