Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
Thus it is evident that in the Fig. 10 position, the belt is
movable relative to the clip, and vice versa.
Appellants further argue that the Chollet clip has no
means for “maintaining” engagement with the strap, since “the
strap can easily slide off the end of the element (24)”
(brief, page 10). This argument is not persuasive, because
Chollet does provide structure which would tend to prevent the
belt 6 from easily sliding off bar 24, in that bar 24 has
notches 34 of a length at least equal to the width of the
belt; see page 11, lines 1 to 3, and Fig. 8. Thus, as shown
in Figs. 8, 9 and 10, there is a “head” on the end of bar 24
which would tend to prevent belt 6 from slipping off bar 24,
and therefore would tend to maintain sliding engagement of the
base member with the strap, as called for by claim 9.
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 are grouped with claim 9 (brief,
page 4) and fall therewith.
The additional limitations of claim 16 are considered to
be met by Chollet for the same reasons as discussed above with
regard to claim 8. Specifically, Chollet’s body member 24 is
rotatably mounted on the base member 22, and has a camming
portion 29 and a lever arm 38.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007