Appeal 2007-2027
Application 10/210,269
as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone.” 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
Here, claim 8 is the broadest claim subject to this ground of rejection,
and is therefore representative of the rejected claims. Claim 8 reads: “The
device of claim 1 wherein said hard portion is ABS.” Because the claims
have been argued as a group, the remaining claims will stand or fall with
claim 8. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We agree with the Examiner that the teachings of Lukens, Jacobs, and
McKay render claim 8 obvious. As discussed above, the Examiner has
established that one of ordinary skill would have considered the athletic cup
recited in claim 1 obvious over Lukens and Jacobs. Neither Lukens nor
Jacobs discloses using ABS as the rigid portion of Lukens’ cup.
However, McKay discloses “protective guards worn over the coccyx”
for use in, for example, ice and roller skating (McKay, col. 1, ll. 15-21).
McKay’s device is composed of a “rigid member [that] provides the
structural base of the protective pad,” covered on the front and back by
resilient flexible members (id. at col. 2, ll. 13-16). McKay discloses that this
structural base of the device “is formed from a substantially rigid material,
such as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), which . . . has sufficient
rigidity to maintain configuration of hook 14 and protective panel 16 under
ordinary use, to resist forces from impacts, and to distribute these forces
over a relatively large area” (id. at col. 3, ll. 25-30, emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill viewing Lukens
and Jacobs in light of McKay would have considered claim 8 obvious.
Specifically, one of ordinary skill would have considered it obvious to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013