Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
[this] function better at a lower position [on the shoulder
straps].” One of ordinary skill would therefore have been
motivated to provide a means to keep strap 40 at such lower
position, where it would be better able to keep straps 30 from
slipping on belt 20.
Chollet discloses a means for securing a strap 7 to belts
4 and 6 so that the strap will not rise toward the face of the
user (page 5, lines 13 to 20). In view of Chollet’s
disclosure, we conclude that it would have been obvious to
utilize the securing means of Chollet, such as that disclosed
in Figs. 7 to 13, to retain the Peek strap 40 in a lower
position on straps 30.
Appellants argue that the combination of Peek and Chollet
would not meet all the limitations of claim 1 because the
Chollet clip does not have “an opening through which at least
one of said shoulder straps is positioned” (claim 1, lines 6
to 7; emphasis added). However, as the examiner points out on
page 7 of the answer, Chollet’s strap 6 extends through
opening 26, around bar 24, and back through 26, thus meeting
this limitation of the claim.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007