Appeal 2007-1812
Application 10/759,713
on Edwards. That is, claim 1 is not limited to a device having a strap with
only two ends. Claim 1 merely requires a “single fastener for coupling” the
first end of the strap to the second end of the strap. The attaching elements
on, for example, the long connecting means of Edwards appear to meet this
limitation. That is, Edwards discloses a sling holder having only one
fastener for connecting the first section of the long connecting means to the
second section of the long connecting means. There is no language in
claim 1 that excludes a fastener from being present on other portions of the
device, such as the ends of the short connecting means of Edwards’ device.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 1 is anticipated by Edwards, which Appellants have not rebutted. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Claims 2-10 fall with claim 1.
4. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 1-10 and 12-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Silverberg in view of Allen. With regard to claim 1, the
Examiner relies on Silverberg for disclosing a sling holder comprising “a
strap (12); having a first end and an opposing second end; a fastener (14) for
coupling said first end to said second end; and at least one pocket
attachable (20) to said strap” (Answer 6). With regard to claim 16, the
Examiner relies on Silverberg for additionally disclosing “a second strap
(second of 12) for adjusting a length of said sling holder, said second strap
being attachable at a first end thereof to said first strap; [and] a fastener (14)
for coupling a second end of said second strap to said first strap” (id. at 8-9).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013