Appeal No. 97-0454
Application No. 08/089,375
We do not agree. Jones discloses exactly the type of tie
restraining device over which the appellant believes his
invention to be an improvement, but there is no recognition in
Jones of the problem solved by the appellant’s invention. While
the secondary reference teaches the use of stiffened cloth, it is
not for use in a necktie or in an article of apparel in which
there is a requirement for one member to slide upon another, nor
is it for the purpose of facilitating sliding action. The
purpose of the stiffened cloth in Smith is to improve the
appearance of the outer layer of a garment by reducing the
tendency of the outer layer to wrinkle or bulge (column 1). The
horizontal and vertical members recited in claim 5 are on the
back side of the necktie and are not the outer layers of a
garment. Thus, from our perspective, one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have found suggestion in the teachings of Smith
to make the restraining members of a stiffened cloth such as the
fusion cloth used as a backing for shirt collars.
It is our view that the combined teachings of Jones and
Smith fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter recited in claim 5. We therefore
will not sustain this rejection of claim 5 or, it follows, of
claims 10 and 11, which depend therefrom.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007