Appeal No. 97-0695
Application No. 08/273,466
within the pad to prevent removal of the handle from
the pad without tearing the pad.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 20-22) that neither
cited reference discloses barbs formed by making a plurality
of slits wherein the slits extend a first distance equal to at
least 3 percent of a second distance through the handle. The
second distance being the distance through the handle in a
direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis with the
first distance extending at an angle to the longitudinal axis
so that the barbs extend outwardly and rearwardly. We find
this argument unconvincing for the following reasons. First,
as stated above, nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures.
Secondly, we agree with the examiner's determination (answer,
p. 6) that the recited dimensional limitations are matters of
design choice lacking any criticality since they solve no
stated problem especially since the appellants have not
contested otherwise. Lastly, the combination of Janssen and
Ager, as modified above with respect to claims 3 and 5, would
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007