Appeal No. 2004-1202
Application No. 09/908,938
The difficulty we have with the examiner’s rejection is that the
selected King reference is silent as to any difference in
flexibility between an upper and lower flap. Further, and of
particular importance, we readily discern that one versed in the
art would appreciate that it would be sheer speculation as to
whether the upper flap (the earlier indicated composite of the
inner and outer layers 18, 19, the strap 12, and the element 23)
of King is more flexible than the lower flap (portrayed on the
left side of the lower portion of Fig.4). Since the examiner has
not proffered a sound reference that independent claims 1, 17,
29, and 30 read on, we are constrained to reverse this
anticipation rejection.
The second rejection
4(...continued)
examiner, one skilled in this art would not understand a layer of
material by itself in the King teaching, e.g., either layer 18 or
and 19, to connote an upper flap, as claimed. Instead, as we see
it, the upper flap of King would be understood to be the
composite of inner and outer layers 18, 19, strap 12, and element
23 (Fig. 4).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007