Appeal No. 96-2862
Application No. 08/030,704
achieve these expressly stated advantages. As to the appellants’
contention that, since the weight of an object on the arm of
Hutchison would aid in more firmly forcing the lower fastener
against the pegboard, there would be no incentive to replace
Hutchison’s lower fastener, we note that the artisan would
understand as a matter of common knowledge and common sense that
“pull-out” forces are often exerted when an object is being
removed from a hook-like arm such as that of Hutchison. Thus,
there would indeed be incentive for the artisan to replace
Hutchison’s lower fastener with one which provides optimum pull-
out resistance as taught by Schuplin.
The appellants have not separately argued the patentability
of dependent claim 21. Accordingly, this claim falls with
independent claim 9. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
In an apparent attempt to provide evidence of nonobviousness
the appellants under the heading “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION” on
pages 1 and 2 of the brief have made reference to a magazine
article which broadly states that many hooks designed for
pegboard have a tenancy to fall off, but that “Power Peg” hooks
are “more likely to stay in place” and “Forever Peg Hooks”
“absolutely never fall off (barring major abuse, of course).”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007