Appeal No. 96-1874
Application 08/215,467
claimed loop is made from a synthetic rubber material. The
leather of Lunders is not an elastomeric material because
leather is not a synthetic rubber. Whether it would have been
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 to replace
Lunders’ leather material with an elastomeric material is a
question which has not been briefed by the parties.
Although we cannot say whether there is prior art
available which would suggest the obviousness of claims 1 and
2, we can say that the prior art applied by the examiner does
not support the rejection as formulated by the examiner.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and
2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007