Ex Parte Richlen et al - Page 12

                  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                                                                                          


                                                            12                                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12

Last modified: September 9, 2013