Appeal 2007-2027
Application 10/210,269
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 7, 8, 17, and 18
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Lukens, Jacobs and McKay (Answer 4-5).
The Examiner states that “Lukens in view of Jacobs et al. discloses
the previously described athletic cup, having a primary portion of a
thermoplastic composition with gas pockets” (id. at 4). The Examiner
concedes that “Lukens does not specify that the hard portion of the athletic
cup be made of ABS” (id.).
To meet this deficiency, the Examiner cites McKay as disclosing “a
bodily protective device made from ABS to resist forces from impacts, and
to distribute these forces over a relatively large area. McKay discloses that
the protective device is sufficiently rigid to perform this function” (id. at 5)
The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill would have considered it
obvious to provide “the athletic cup disclosed by Lukens in view of Jacobs
et al., with a hard portion made of ABS, as taught by McKay, to resist force
from impact” (id.).
Appellant argues that the issue in this rejection is “whether the third
reference, McKay[,] discloses a minimum hardness (Claim 7) for the cage-
like outer portion of Lukens as modified by Jacobs” (Br. 7). Appellant
argues that “[t]here is no bas[i]s to assume that the material of McKay, even
though it is ABS, would have any particular value for hardness” (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. “When multiple
claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group by
appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group of claims that
are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013