Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
after reviewing the rejection as explained by the examiner on
pages 10-12 of the answer, we find the examiner’s position
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to replace the permanent riveted connection between
the bar (34), tether (30) and cover (22) in Rogers with a
readily disconnect- able snap fastening connection means as in
MacFadden to be
untenable and based on hindsight derived from appellants’ own
teachings. For those reasons, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
In view of the foregoing, the examiner's decision
rejecting claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Sakakida, and the decision rejecting claims 3 through 7 and 10
through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
REVERSED
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007