Appeal No. 96-2862
Application No. 08/030,704
it. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644
(CCPA 1974) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, 1648 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1987).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Muirhead in view of either Schuplin or Niemi.
As we have noted above, Schuplin discloses fasteners 58, 60 that
are integrally formed with a holder 52, which fasteners provide
“optimum pull-out resistance” (see column 1, line 60) when
attaching the holder to a perforated panel. Niemi discloses
fasteners 32 that are integrally formed with a holder 10, which
fasteners lock the holder in place on perfboard or pegboard panel
(see column 1, lines 46-56). One of ordinary skill in this art
would have found it obvious to substitute in Muirhead for his
fasteners 32 the fasteners of either Schuplin or Niemi in order
to achieve the expressly stated advantage of providing “optimum
pull-out resistance” as taught Schuplin or “locking” the holder
to the perfboard or pegboard panel as taught by Niemi.
In summary:
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007