Appeal 2006-3390
Application 10/441,783
1 molding operation (Specification 3:0008). Thus, the Specification is consistent
2 with the ordinary meaning of “unitary”. Baroky’s zipper guard and zipper slide,
3 when snapped together, have the character of a unit and are whole and undivided.
4 Hence, the snapped-together pieces are unitary. That combination of two snapped-
5 together pieces, however, is not a single piece. Hence, the Examiner has not
6 established a prima facie case of anticipation of the inventions claimed in the
7 Appellant’s claims 1 and 13, or their dependent claims 2, 5, 12 and 15.
8 Claim 21
9 Claim 21 requires that the guard and zipper slide form a piece that is unitary,
10 but the claim does not require that the unitary piece is a single piece. As discussed
11 above, Baroky’s snapped-together guard and zipper slide form a unitary piece.
12 The Appellant argues that Baroky’s guard and zipper slide are not a single,
13 unitary piece (Br. 10; Reply Br. 4). The Appellant, however, does not argue that
14 Baroky fails to disclose a guard and zipper slide that is unitary but need not be a
15 single piece.
16 We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the Examiner’s
17 rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
18 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
19 The Appellant argues:
20 Baroky teaches away from the reference [sic, invention] by stating that “it is
21 therefore the object of the invention to provide a separate, readily attachable
22 guard suitable for retrofitting conventional slide fasteners…” [Baroky,
23 col. 1. ll. 25-27] [Br. 9][3]
24 Baroky is directed to attaching a separate guard to existing slide
25 fasteners. The patent is directed to a guard that is installed on an already
3 Citations herein to the Brief are to the Amended Appeal Brief, dated May 23,
2006.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013