Appeal 2007-1323 Application 10/032,701 (Id.) Based on this evidence, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention would have been an obvious modification of Igaue’s garment as taught by Van Gompel (Answer 5-6). We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning. In response, Appellants assert that claim 42 requires a tear strength of less than about 5 lbf along the line of weakness. (Br. 13). In this regard, Appellants rely on their arguments relating to claim 11 and assert that Van Gompel does not make up for the deficiencies in Igaue (id.). Having found no deficiency in the Examiner’s reliance on Igaue, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion to the contrary. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 44, 47, and 48 fall together with claim 42. CONCLUSION In summary, we affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED lbg BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE P.O. BOX 10395 CHICAGO IL 60610 12Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: September 9, 2013