Appeal No. 97-3298
Application No. 08/349,426
conclusion in view of the teaching in the reference that the
shoe lace forms the loop of a bow, which in our view
conventionally is considered to be elongated, as well as the
depiction in Figure 4a of an elongated loop. Suggestion for
this is found in the self-evident advantage of providing the
most accurate directions possible to the user, and in the
explicit use of markings by Bonfigli along which the laces are
to be disposed (Fig. 1, markings 36 and 38).
A prima facie case of obviousness therefore is
established with regard to the subject matter of claim 1, and
we shall sustain the rejection of this claim.
Claim 3 adds to claim 1 the requirement that there be a
holdown “lying substantially along said line” which marks the
shoe lace loop. The reference discloses a holdown (46)
located below the side flaps (column 2, lines 51 and 52). It
is adjacent to the midpoint of the shoe lace, and its function
is to hold the center portion of the lace in place under the
side flaps, akin to the function of the holes in the
appellant’s device. It therefore does not meet the terms of
the claim, for it does not lie along the line of the shoe lace
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007