Appeal No. 96-3543
Application No. 08/153,623
regard to the claim. This rejection therefore cannot be
sustained.
The combined teachings of Dilbey, Gullen and Lockney form
the basis for the examiner’s rejection of independent claim
14. This claim does not, however, include the limitations
regarding the color of the various members from which the net
is constructed, and for this reason we find ourselves in
agreement with the examiner that a prima facie case of
obviousness is established by the references. We begin our
analysis by noting that the Dilbey net is constructed in the
same fashion as is required by claim 14, that is, both weft
and warp members (in the terminology of the appellants) are so
disposed and oriented with respect to one another that each
weft member and each warp member forms at least one rung and
one rail of the net. While many of Dilbey’s figures
illustrate the net as having the weft and the warp members in
a diagonal relationship with the border member, in Figure 5
they are in the same relationship as is required by the claim,
except at the corner portions (54). Moreover, Gullen teaches
weft members and warp members that intersect the border member
perpendicularly. It is our opinion that it would have been
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007