Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
Peek in view of Chollet, under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
(2) Claims 9 to 11, 13, 14 and 16, anticipated by Chollet,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We have fully considered the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellants’ brief and the examiner’s
answer. Our conclusions as to each of the rejections are
given under separate headings below.
Rejection (1)
The basis of this rejection is set forth on pages 4 and 5
of the examiner’s answer.
First considering claim 1, appellants argue that there is
no incentive in the prior art to modify Peek to provide a
securing device, as disclosed by Chollet in Fig. 7 et seq.,
for securing the restraining strap 40 of Peek to shoulder
straps 30a and/or 30b. We do not agree. The disclosed
purpose of Peek’s restraining strap 40 is to prevent shoulder
straps 30 “from slipping on the belt 20” (col. 4, lines 45 to
49), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill,
as appellants indicate in the sentence bridging pages 7 to 8
of their brief, that Peek’s strap 40 “would likely perform
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007