Appeal No. 2006-1887
Application No. 10/725,837
away from the modification proposed by the examiner and that, in any event, there
is no suggestion in the references that would have provided any motivation for
their combination to arrive at the claimed invention (brief, pp. 4 and 5). We do not
agree. While the overlap of the sleeve 46 and arm portion 18 of Deasy is
substantial, as discussed above, so as to effect a generally uniform pressure along
such overlap region, Deasy also provides enlarged beads along the edges of the
sleeve 46 and arm portion 18 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. 49-53).
Accordingly, the recognition in both Deasy and Myers of the advantages in a body
compression system of providing both a base level of generally uniform
compression and a level of added compression in localized regions as desired
indicates that the systems of Deasy and Myers are more alike and more similar to
appellant’s invention in both structure and purpose than the appellant would have
us believe. The provision of an inner lining having ridges or “a series of irregular
inner surfaces” as taught by Myers in the arm portion 18 of Deasy would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention
in order to give greater compression than the arm portion 18 alone at any desired
point, not just the edges of the arm portion 18 and sleeve 46 where enlarged beads
are provided.
In light of the above, the argument in appellant’s brief fails to persuade us of
any error on the part of the examiner in rejecting independent claims 1 and 5. We
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013