Appeal No. 96-2455
Application 08/223,323
or suggest an "adhesive means" like that set forth in the
claims before us on appeal. In contrast with the examiner's
position, it is apparent from the translation of the Gemy
reference that there is nothing therein which provides any
teaching, suggestion or incentive regarding an adhesive means
to facilitate anchoring a cover means to a chair, as the
examiner seems to have believed. Instead, Gemy discloses a
protective device for a vehicle seat wherein a fabric cover
(2), such as velour, is attached peripherally to a smooth,
slippery surface element (1), such as plastic,
by stitching as seen in Figure 1. Ties (3, 4) are used to
secure
the protective device to the seat. No adhesive is used or
disclosed in Gemy. Thus, the examiner's position with regard
to claims 1 through 7, 9 through 12, 18 through 21 and 24 is
totally without factual support in the applied references and
must there- fore be reversed.
As for the examiner's rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schenz, Nail, Gemy
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007