Appeal No. 97-2226 Page 4
Application No. 08/203,789
b) claims 2 and 3 as being unpatentable over Boettcher in
view of Dye, Kephart as applied to claim 1 and further in view of
Spriggs;
c) claim 11 as being unpatentable over Boettcher in view of
Gershman ; 3
d) claims 30 and 31 as being unpatentable over Boettcher in
view of Dye as applied to claim 1 and further in view of
Thompson; and
e) claim 22 as being unpatentable over Boettcher in view of
Dye, Kephart Mucci and Gershman.4
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the § 103 rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
3We are unable to locate a copy of Gershman in the
application filewrapper. Additionally, we are unable to find
Gershman cited on any of the Notices of References Cited (Form
PTO-892) or the Information Disclosure Statements (Form PTO-1449)
of record in the application file. Accordingly, we are unable to
consider the teachings of Gershman. However, since the examiner
relied upon Gershman for only a teaching of Velcro and we are ®
reversing the rejections made by the examiner for other reasons
as explained infra, we see no need to remand this application to
the examiner to provide a copy of Gershman.
4 Id.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007