Appeal No. 96-3549
Application 08/171,484
However, the difficulty that we have with this rejection
under 35 USC § 103 is that we do not perceive that it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, from a
combined consideration of the teachings applied by the examiner,
to effect the claimed invention. We recognize, as focused upon
by appellants, that Wilson (column 7, lines 51 through 65)
explicitly instructs those versed in the art to rely upon
stronger primary closures at the end points of each fastener
member, specific examples being garment snaps and equivalent
snap-like closures. On the other hand, the secondary load-bearing
closure means 60 of Wilson (column 5, lines 42 through 63)
between the primary snap closures may be a third snap element or,
alternatively, a hook and loop arrangement. In our opinion, the
clear instruction derived from the Wilson teaching is that a
stronger, fixed position, snap or snap-like closure is required
as a primary closure. Thus, notwithstanding the Toussant
disclosure, it is our view that the teaching of Wilson, in
particular, would have clearly militated against the examiner’s
proposed modification of the primary closures. For these reasons,
the examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 103 cannot be sustained
based upon the applied patents.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007