Appeal No. 2004-2354
Application No. 09/923,991 Page 18
§ 103(a) Rejection over Jordan, Moore and Jensen
All of claims 7-10, which are subjected to this rejection,
require the plurality of matrix features of claim 5. The
examiner has not explained how Jensen would make up for the
deficiencies of Moore. Consequently,, for the reasons stated
above, we shall reverse the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claims 7-10 over Jordan, Moore and Jensen.
§ 103(a) Rejection over Jordan, Moore and Sobel
Claim 12, which is subjected to this rejection, requires the
plurality of matrix features of claim 5. The examiner has not
explained how Sobel would make up for the deficiencies of Moore,
as discussed above. Consequently, for the reasons stated above,
we shall reverse the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 12
over Jordan, Moore and Sobel.
§ 103(a) Rejection over Jordan, Moore and Weller
Claim 14, which is subjected to this rejection, requires the
plurality of matrix features of claim 5 and the pressurized air
connected foam layer feature of claim 24. It follows that, for
the combination of the deficiencies in the examiner’s rejection
of claim 5 and those in the examiner’s rejection of claim 24, as
separately discussed above, we shall reverse the examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 14 over Jordan, Moore and Weller.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007