Ex Parte Miles - Page 9

               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                

                                                    9                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013