Appeal No. 2002-1893
Application No. 09/767,413
expressly teaches (column 4, lines 13 through 15) that the stiff
strap should be “nonelastic.” We agree with the appellants
(brief, page 9) that only in hindsight does the disclosed and
claimed combination of elements appear obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the pertinent art. Thus, the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 4 is reversed because the
skilled artisan armed with the stiff and nonelastic strap
teachings of O’Dwyer certainly would not have resorted to “design
choice” to choose a material that performs in an opposite manner
to the material specifically chosen by O’Dwyer.
The obviousness rejections of claims 3 and 5 through 11 are
reversed because the sensor teachings of Teodorescu and the
visual warning light teachings of Tao fail to cure the noted
shortcoming in the teachings of O’Dwyer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007