Appeal No. 2006-0294
Application No. 09/953,030
subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection.
According to the examiner, the only difference between the
claimed invention and the invention disclosed by Thomas is that
the bladder of the claimed invention is in contact with the gel-
like material. The examiner explains that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to remove bladder
pad 140 from the device of Thomas to result in contact between
gel-like material 110 and the bladder.
The flaw in the examiner’s reasoning, as pointed out by
appellant, is that Thomas does not describe member 110 as a gel-
like material. Rather, Thomas describes support layer 110 as
high density base foam. The examiner reasons, however, that “the
member 110 is a gel-like member to the broad degree claimed”
(page 3 of answer, second paragraph).
Appellant’s specification provides the following disclosure:
The enclosure 6 is filled with a gel-like material 10, or
other suitable dampening material, for example, propylene
glycol, highly plasticized polyvinyl chloride, hydrogel,
etc., although, any generally viscous material may be
employed. [Sentence bridging pages 4 and 5.]
Accordingly, it can be seen that when the claim language “gel-
like material” is read in light of the present specification, it
cannot be reasonably said that the language embraces the high
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007