Appeal No. 96-4149
Application 08/276,436
individually fastened to the support channel 10, it cannot be
said that Horvath anticipated claims 1 to 5 and 7. As to the
anticipation rejection of claim 6 based on Mayr, claim 6
requires that the first bracket has an elongated slot wider
than the width of the strap-like member to allow movement of
the strap relative to the first
bracket. Notwithstanding the examiner finding that Mayr’s
buckle 75 is configured "to accommodate the width of the belt
or strap [79]" (answer, page 4), we see nothing in Mayr that
meets the elongated slot limitation of claim 6. In light of
the foregoing, it is clear that the § 102 rejection of claims
1 to 5 and 7 as being anticipated by Horvath, and the § 102
rejection of claim 6 as being anticipated by Mayr, cannot be
sustained. We therefore reverse these rejections on the
merits.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new rejections.
Claims 1 to 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007