Appeal No. 2004-0363
Application 09/176,866
that the applied prior art references as a whole would have
rendered the subject matter defined by claims 6, 7, 9 and 15
through 18 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 7, 9 and 15 through 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Further, the appellant does not dispute the examiner’s
holding that it would have been obvious to employ the additional
features recited in claims 19 and 20 in the massaging device
suggested by Holt, Rohrer and Marshall. See the Brief, page 16.
Rather, the appellant argues that “they are seen as patentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the art for the same reasons as
Claim 15.” Id. Thus, for the same reasons indicated above, we
affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Finally, the appellant does not dispute the examiner’s
holding that it would have been obvious to employ the additional
features recited in claims 2 through 5 in the massaging device of
the type described in Holt. See the Brief, page 13. Rather, the
appellant argues that “they are seen as patentable under 35
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007