Appeal No. 95-2939
Application 08/050,690
Appellant additionally argues that Osterland does not
disclose resilient reversely bent extensions as recited in claim
6. This argument is not persuasive because the legs in Osterland
do include resilient reversely bent members 34 and 36 (Figure 4).
The argument is also made by appellant that Osterland does
not disclose a centering tab as recited in claim 7. This
argument is likewise not persuasive because Osterlund discloses
tabs 38, 40 which are inwardly offset so that the outside of tabs
38 and 40 press against the hole in the mounting surface after
the legs pass through the hole and flex apart (Fig. 2).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Osterland.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 6-9 as
anticipated by Nelson, the appellant argues that Nelson does not
disclose a strap accepting channel. We agree with the appellant
that the area between legs 12 is not a strap accepting channel.
A "channel" is defined as "a closed course or conduit through
which anything passes." Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary
(G. & C. Merriam Co., 2d Ed., 1954). The space between legs 12
cannot be considered a channel because it is not closed. In
addition, the legs 12 cannot be considered to extend from the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007