Appeal No. 2003-1439
Application No. 09/896,112
particular muscles or even further to rest adjacent particular
muscles of a horse. (Appeal Brief, page 5, lines 14-21).
Again, we are constrained to agree with the appellant.
Nothing in Thomas discloses use for a horse or the plurality of
ice pockets and the examiner has provided no reasoning which would
support a prima facie case of obviousness. We therefore reverse
this rejection.
New Ground of Rejection
We enter the following new grounds of rejection.
III. The Rejection of Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, and 12-18 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Buckley in view of De Rosa
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 (a) as unpatentable over Buckley in view of De Rosa.
We find that Buckley teaches a controlled cold therapy
apparatus specifically for a horse (see Figure 1).
As for claim 1, Buckley discloses a main panel 19 sized to
fit over a horse’s back and sides, having side sections extending
down the horse’s sides from opposite sides of the center section;
a strap 29 which secures the main panel to the horse, and a
plurality of cooling conduits for cooling selected portions of the
horse. (Figure 6, reference numeral 30).
De Rosa teaches a cooling garment to alleviate physiological
strain due to heat stress (abstract). A plurality of water-filled
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007