Appeal 2007-1812
Application 10/759,713
that the combination of Silverberg with Allen “does not result in a fastener
positioned within a perimeter of a strap (Br. 5).1
Appellants also argue that Allen “emphasizes the stretchable, elastic
qualities of its device while Silverberg explicitly discloses a wrap that
snugly fits around a body area without the need for elastic bands” (Br. 5-6).
Appellants conclude that “one of skill in the art would not likely look from
multiple panel wraps that explicitly avoid the use of elastic bands
(Silverberg) to stretchable elastic devices (Allen) to arrive at the invention as
recited in claim 1” (id. at 6).
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner is relying on
Allen to demonstrate that it would have been obvious to use a single fastener
positioned completely within the perimeter of the strap. Although
Silverberg describes a wrap that “snugly fit[s] around a body area without
the need for . . . elastic bands” (Silverberg, col. 2, ll. 12-13) and Allen
describes a support member formed from an “elastic material which is
capable of stretching in multiple directions” (Allen, col. 2, ll. 63-67), we do
not agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Allen for
ways to fasten a strap around a body area. “The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Appellants raise substantially the same arguments for claim 16 that
are raised for claim 1 (Br. 7). We are not persuaded by these arguments for
the reasons discussed above.
1 In fact, Allen appears to anticipate claim 1.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013