Appeal 2006-2714 Application 10/228,898 the language of claim 7 as being directed to the method of assembly of the device and not a structural limitation of the claim (Answer 7). The rejection of claims 7 and 9 as anticipated by Sims is grounded in part on this erroneous determination and thus must also be reversed. The fourth issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5-9 as unpatentable over Matechuk in view of any of Loveless, Takizawa, and Sims. More specifically, the issue raised by Appellant is whether it would have been obvious to replace the attachment means of Matechuk’s sanding block 10 to either the carrier 20 or the attachment body 46 with a hook and loop fastening arrangement to arrive at the invention recited in Appellant’s claim 5 (Br. 10-11). The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to modify Matechuk “with hook and loop connection as taught by anyone of Loveless, [Takizawa] or Sims in adapting the tool with a simple, easy and fast means of detachably securing the pad, so that it may be replaced when worn out” (Answer 4). As pointed out by Appellant (Br. 10), the Examiner has not adequately explained which securement, the securement of Matechuk’s sanding block 10 to carrier 20 or the securement of sanding block 10 to attachment body 46, the Examiner proposes to replace with a hook and loop fastening. Furthermore, as also pointed out by Appellant (Br. 10-11), the Examiner has not provided any evidence or rationale to support the position that a hook and loop type fastening arrangement would have been an easier or faster means for attaching a sanding pad 10 to Matechuk’s carrier 20 than Matechuk’s self-aligning system of inserting carrier 20 into recess 26 of sanding pad 10 (Matechuk, col. 3, ll. 50-69 and Fig. 1). Accordingly, absent hindsight gleaned from Appellant’s disclosure, it is not apparent why one of 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013