Appeal No. 2006-1887
Application No. 10/725,837
The appellant seeks review of the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 as
being unpatentable over Deasy in view of Myers. The obviousness-type double
patenting rejection set forth in the final rejection (mailed January 5, 2005) has
apparently been withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed August 24,
2005, which has been approved.
Rather than reiterate in their entirety the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed October 4, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection and to the appellant's brief (filed August 26, 2005) for
the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Having
considered all of the evidence and argument before us, we conclude that the
examiner’s obviousness rejection should be sustained. Our reasons for this
conclusion follow.
Deasy discloses an elastic garment, proven very effective in treating
edema (col. 2, ll. 56-57), including a pant-like portion 12, a pair of tubular leg
portions 14, a coat-like portion 16 and a pair of tubular arm portions 18 (col. 3, ll.
33-37). The tubular arm portions 18 are sized to extend from the wrist of a user up
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013