Appeal No. 1997-4392
Application No. 08/639,515
Shimizu.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full statement with regard to the above noted
rejections and conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 10, mailed June 25, 1997) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.9, filed March 24, 1997) for
the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellant’s
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions as set forth
by the appellant and the examiner.
With regard to the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 12 based on
Altman in view of Eschenbach, we find that the examiner has failed to established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Altman discloses a protective cover 10 for a headrest portion of a seat back 12, the cover
having at least one thread-like strip 16 of looped construction attached to sheet material 11 and
designed to be used in a hook and loop type connection. It is disclosed that the threadlike strip is
attached to the sheet material “in any suitable manner” (col. 2, line 12), and more particularly by “zigzag
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007