Appeal No. 2000-2008
Application No. 09/227,903
plate.
The examiner reads the claimed "means for holding" on
flaps 14, 16 of Bonfigli, and the claimed tab on Bonfigli's
tab 46. Appellant argues that Bonfigli "does not have a tab
spaced from the means for holding a middle portion of the
shoelace, in order to hold-down a looped end portion of the
shoelace" (brief, page 5). This argument is not persuasive
because Bonfigli's tab 46 clearly is spaced from flaps 14 and
16. Also, claim 6 (unlike claim 1) does not require that the
tab hold down a looped portion of the shoelace, but only that
it "hold down said [sic: a, per footnote 1, supra] location
along one of said shoelace end portions;" Bonfigli's tab 46
meets this limitation in that it holds down a location along
the shoelace portion to the left of center dot 24b (in Fig.
8).
Thus, claim 6 is anticipated by Bonfigli.
Claim 7 is also anticipated by Bonfigli. Appellant's
only argument as to this claim is that Bonfigli's plate (12)
"does not have a rounded front end, but only rounded markings"
(brief, page 5). However, as the examiner points out,
Bonfigli discloses that the outline of the "shoe" "may be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007