Appeal No. 2006-1769
Application No. 09/784,292
Further, appellants provide no basis or evidence to support their
position that a releasable connection would not benefit from a larger
connection area. For example, a larger connection area would
ostensibly require a greater force to release the strap member from the
chassis. In certain circumstances where it is anticipated that the
wearer is going to be active, such greater force may be warranted to
prevent the strap member from being accidentally disengaged from
the chassis by movement of the wearer.
Based on the reasons set forth in the appellants’ brief and reply
brief, they contend that a prima facie case of obviousness has not be
established because the cited references fail to provide any suggestion
or motivation to modify the references or to combine reference
teachings to achieve a garment having side panels releasably
connected to front and back panels wherein the side panels each have
a waist edge that is non-parallel with a leg edge when the side panels
are in a laid flat configuration. (Appellants’ Reply Brief, pp. 3-4).
In order to determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness
has been established, we considered the three factors set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966), viz., (1) the scope
and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art.
We have set forth above our reading of the scope and content of Kuen
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007