Appeal No. 96-1511
Application 08/063,919
the subject matter recited in claim 10, in order to achieve the
self-evident advantages of wing portions which require less
material and are easier to flex.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Copell in view of Engvall, and further in view
of Clay.
The Copell holder device as modified in view of Engvall does
not meet the limitation in claim 11 requiring the wing portions
to terminate in enlarged longitudinally extending lobes.
Clay discloses a holder device “for attaching umbrellas, and
other suitable articles to suitcases and similar articles” (page
1, lines 6 through 8). The device is made of a resilient strip
of sheet metal and includes a base portion and two arm or wing
portions extending upwardly from the base portion to receive the
article. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, wing portions terminate in
enlarged lobes or beads 13, 14 to prevent damage to the articles
(see page 2, lines 94 through 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art in view of Clay to terminate the wing portions of the Copell
holder device as modified in view of Engvall in lobes, thereby
arriving at the subject matter recited in claim 11, in order to
prevent damage to the articles held thereby. The record does not
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007