Appeal No. 2005-0958
Application No. 09/944,477
THE PRIOR ART
The examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Sisson 4,107,364 Aug. 15, 1978
Ness 4,525,407 Jun. 25, 1985
Austin et al. (Austin) 5,543,206 Aug. 6, 1996
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as “being unpatentable over Ness in view of Sisson optionally
further taken with Austin . . . . ” See the Answer, page 4.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and the appellant in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that
the examiner’s Section 103 rejection is not well founded.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection for essentially
those reasons set forth in the Brief and Reply Brief. We add the
following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter
under Section 103, the examiner relies on the combined
disclosures of Ness, Sisson and optionally Austin. Ness
discloses various processes by which composite sheets useful for
making, inter alia, garments or bandages can be produced. See
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007