Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
applying a nut over the tab on the bolt, we must agree with
appellants that Sakakida does not anticipate the subject
matter set forth in claim 8 on appeal. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
on Sakakida will not be sustained.
In the rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 10 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner urges (final rejection,
page 6) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Hirabayashi to include releasable
attachment means such as taught by Sakakida in order to attach
the tether (16) of Hirabayashi “using equivalent structure in
the art.” While we find this statement of the rejection to be
somewhat cryptic, we note that the examiner provides further
explanation
on page 7 of the answer, where it is noted that the skilled
artisan would have found it obvious
to use a tab receiving the bolt on the end
of the strap as taught by Sakakida et al,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007