Appeal No. 98-2357
Application 08/772,336
as being unpatentable over Tugwood in view of Cook.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tugwood in view of Cook and Staude.
Both of these rejections are bottomed on the examiner's
position that:
Tugwood et al discloses a leash for a surfboard
comprising a first coil having a plurality of loops
adjacent to each other and forming a cylinder 3
having an inner diameter, and a flexible strap 1
having a width adapted to be secured to a user of
the surfboard. No dimensions are given for the
inner diameter nor for the width of the strap. Cook
discloses a retractable coiled telephone cord and
teaches forming the same with coils having an inner
diameter of 1 3/4 inches. Conventional coiled
telephone cord[s] have a coil with an inner diameter
of about a 1/4 inch. In view of these disclosures,2
it would have been an obvious matter of design
choice to one having ordinary skill in the art to
make the coils of the device of Tugwood et al with
coils having an inner diameter larger than one inch
[sic, 1 3/4 inches] generally [sic] as taught by
Cook. The width of the strap relative to the size
2 Apparently the examiner is also attempting to utilize a
"conventional coiled telephone cord" as a reference. We must
point out, however, if a reference (e.g., a "conventional
coiled telephone cord" is relied upon in any capacity to
support a rejection, the reference should be positively
included in the statement of the rejection. See Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 706.02 (j) (7th ed., Jul.
1998), In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407
n.3 (CCPA 1970) and Ex parte Raske, 28 USPQ2d 1304-05 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007