Appeal No. 2006-1887
Application No. 10/725,837
beyond the elbow joint 48 so as to form an overlap with the sleeves 46 of the coat-
like portion 16 (col. 4, ll. 30-34; Fig. 7) and the leg portions 14 are sized such that
the upper edge 40 surrounds the user’s leg at a location above the knee joint 24 so
as to form an overlap with the leg segments 22 of the pant-like portion 12 at the
knee joint when both are worn by an individual (col. 4, ll. 5-10,; Fig. 6). Each
component part of the garment is made of an elastic material and is sized so as to
be compressive on the body of the user and includes an enlarged bead along the
edges thereof to actually compress the body more than the remaining portions of
the components and in effect act like a garter in compressing the body part of the
user immediately beneath the bead (col. 4, ll. 46-53).
In rejecting claims 1-10, the examiner reads the first or innermost sleeve on
Deasy’s arm portion 18 and the second sleeve on the sleeve 46 of the coat-like
portion 16. According to the examiner (answer, pp. 3-4), the sleeve 46 is
configured to be slid over substantially the entire length of the arm portion 18, as
seen in Fig. 7, and to apply additional inward pressure along the length of the limb
(citing col. 4, ll. 35-45).
The appellant argues that Deasy shows overlap of the sleeve 46 with the arm
portion 18 only at the elbow and thus does not disclose the sleeve 46 configured to
be slid over substantially the entire length of the sleeve (brief, p. 4). The examiner
contends that Fig. 7 of Deasy clearly shows an overlap not only at the elbow but
also above the elbow and below the elbow and that such overlap establishes the
sleeve 46 being configured to be slid over substantially (i.e., being largely but not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013