Appeal 2007-1812
Application 10/759,713
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claims 1 and 16 would have been obvious over Silverberg in view of Allen,
which Appellants have not rebutted. We therefore affirm the rejection of
claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2-10 and 12-15 fall with
claim 1 and claims 17-22 fall with claim 16.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Silverberg in view of Allen and Noppel. Claim 11 depends from claim 1
and requires that the sling holder further comprises a temperature indicator
on the strap or pocket.
The Examiner relies on Silverberg and Allen for the features of
claim 1 (Answer 10). The Examiner relies on Noppel for disclosing “a film
of a sensitive material capable of indicating whether the temperature of
transformation has been reached” (id.) The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify the combined teachings of Silverberg
and Allen to include, on the strap or pocket thereof, Noppel’s temperature
indicating film (id.).
Appellants argue that claim 11 is non-obvious based on its
dependency from claim 1 (Br. 6). However, as discussed above, we agree
with the Examiner that Silverberg and Allen render claim 1 obvious.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 11 would have been obvious over Silverberg in view of Allen and
Noppel, which Appellants have not rebutted. We therefore affirm the
rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013