Appeal 2007-2404
Application 10/445,666
Claim 11, which also depends from claim 1, stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Reitz, Frislie, and Ritchey (id.). The
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to further modify the
headgear of Reitz by using the adhesive of Ritchey et al. as the attachment
material to achieve an alternative means of forming a permanent connection
between the face mask and scalp cover” (id.).
Rather than separately contend the rejections of claims 7, 8, and 11,
Appellant states that all of the appealed claims “form a single group of
which Claim 1 is representative and dispositive of this appeal” (Br. 3). As
discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill. We detect no error in the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness with respect to claims 7, 8, and 11. We therefore
affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of those claims.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims
1-5 and 7-11.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013