Appeal No. 96-3408
Application No. 08/194,904
With this as background, we turn to the examiner's rejection
of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (answer, pp. 3-4). The examiner
found that Reimer
discloses a shirt/collar in combination with a concealed
disc fasteners [sic] underneath each collar end and a
corresponding fastener on the shirt portion beneath the
collar.
The examiner then found that Reimer
lacks the "pair" of disc shaped fasteners on each apex
portion of the collar, one on the edge and the other half
way up the collar concealed on the shirt front.
Next, the examiner determined that
it would have been obvious to place as many fasteners as
needed in order to hold the collar in the desired manner
preferred by the wearer. Therefore, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill is the art to modify the
collar fastening means of GP [Reimer] by adding another disc
shaped fastener in order to more firmly hold down the collar
along a greater area.
Our review of this rejection leads us to conclude that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to claim 6. First, even assuming arguendo, that the
examiner's determination of obviousness, set forth above, is
correct, the proposed modification of Reimer would not have
placed the additional disc shaped snap "about half way up the
collar" as required by claim 6. Second, we see no teaching
whatsoever that would have suggested placing an additional disc
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007