Appeal No. 97-4244
Application 08/347,141
“second object” (garment flap) 8, is not within the thickness of
the object. Appellant argues that (brief, page 12)
even a cursory consideration of Figures 1
and 2 of Humiston shows that the “annular,
flat disk plate” 28 of Humiston is positioned
entirely outwardly of the thickness of second
object 8 and clearly forms a bulge above the
surface thereof. The Examiner’s position to
the contrary simply is unsupportable.
The problem with this argument is that the “second
object” is not recited as an element of the combination, but
rather it is recited as something to which the second element is
“to be attached.” Also, the claim does not limit the second
object or recite any particular thickness or other
characteristics of the second object in relation to the thickness
of the disk. Thus, while Figs. 1 and 2 of Humiston show the disk
located outside the second object 8, this is not conclusive
on the issue of anticipation. Humiston discloses that second
object 8 is the flap of a garment, and garments may be made of
many different materials. The location of disk 28 in relation to
the material would therefore depend on what type of material
second object 8 consisted of. If, for example, second object 8
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007