Appeal No. 96-1874
Application 08/215,467
loop member formed of elastomeric material. The examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
employ the teachings of Lunders on the Haskins cover [answer,
pages 4-5].
Appellant argues that there are two recitations of
claim 1 which are not taught by the prior art combination as
applied by the examiner. First, appellant argues that the
handle in Haskins is not sufficiently cantilevered with
respect to the cover that the application of force at the
handle free end will move a portion of the cover out of
alignment with the longitudinal axis of the rest of the cover.
According to appellant, the examiner’s position that the
Haskins cover inherently possesses this property is without
support in the Haskins disclosure. Second, appellant argues
that the loop member of Lunders is not made from an
elastomeric material. According to appellant, the leather
material used for the Lunders loop is not an elastomeric
material as claimed [brief, pages 5-7].
The examiner simply responds that the Haskins cover
and handle inherently have the properties recited in claim 1,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007