Appeal No. 96-2862
Application No. 08/030,704
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Muirhead.
Claims 7, 9-13, 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchison in view of Schuplin.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hutchison in view of Schuplin and Muirhead.
The examiner’s rejections are explained on pages 3-6 of the
answer. The arguments of the appellants and the examiner in
support of their respective positions may be found on pages 5-18
of the brief and pages 7-12 of the answer.
Considering first the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Muirhead, we find nothing in
Muirhead to indicate that the fasteners 32 apply “positive
pressure against the rear surface around the hole into which it
is inserted” as this claim expressly requires. Muirhead only
expressly teaches that the split portions of the fasteners 32
flex inwardly as the end of the fasteners pass through a hole and
thereafter that:
the portions flex outwardly providing an interference
holding relationship with the head abutting the rear
surface of the mounting board for secure retention of
holder 15. [See column 3, lines 55-58].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007