Appeal 2007-2404
Application 10/445,666
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” Id. at 1741.
We note that Reitz discloses that “the face mask may additionally be
used without the attachment to any type of head-wear” (Reitz, col. 2, ll. 2-4).
However, Reitz also clearly discloses embodiments in which the mask is
attached to the cap with straps (see e.g., id. at Figures 2 and 3). We agree
with the Examiner that, given Reitz’s teaching that the cap should be secured
to the mask, one of ordinary skill, being a person of ordinary creativity and
common sense, would have recognized that alternate attachment methods,
such as Frislie’s stitching, would be useful in accomplishing that attachment.
We therefore agree with the Examiner that claim 1 would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art.
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Claims
2-5, 9, and 10 fall with claim 1 because they were not argued separately.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 7, 8, AND 11
Claims 7 and 8, both dependent on claim 1, stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Reitz, Frislie, and Cheatum (Answer
3-4). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to provide the
scalp cover of Reitz with the colors, indicia and insignia of Cheatum to
achieve the advantage of displaying team affiliation with the scalp cover”
(id. at 4).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013