Appeal No. 2003-1119
Application 09/756,588
specific argument regarding any of claims 5 through 8 on appeal
or the examiner’s findings with respect to the teachings of
Kearns, and no cogent rationale as to why the examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness based on the collective teachings of
Meengs and Kearns is in error. 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(8)(iv)
requires, for each rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, that
appellant specify the errors in the rejection, identify the
specific limitations in the rejected claims which are not
described in the prior art relied upon, and explain how the
limitations in question render the claimed subject matter
unobvious over the prior art, this appellant has not done. Thus,
we conclude that the examiner’s position on the obviousness of
the claimed subject matter as a whole as defined in claims 5
through 8 on appeal has not been challenged with any reasonable
degree of specificity.
Since we agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant’s invention, based on the collective teachings of
Meengs and Kearns, to provide the selvage area of the outer cuff
(5) of Meengs with several rounds of elastic yarn in order to
increase the elasticity of the outer cuff portion and thereby
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007