Appeal No. 1997-1970
Application 08/268,732
85 through 88).
In accord with our understanding of the language of claim
21, supra, it is quite apparent to us that the overall
teaching of Geraldine would not have been suggestive of the
claimed device. More specifically, this panel of the board
determines that the hook 5 of Geraldine cannot fairly be
viewed as corresponding to or suggestive of the holder as
defined in claim 21. The opening of the hook 5 of Geraldine
is not a spring loaded receiving opening, and structure of the
hook 5 is not spread apart for receiving and removing a
curtain fabric against the action of a spring; all limitations
required by the language of claim 21. Simply stated, the
evidence before us fails to render claims 21 through 24
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We are, accordingly,
constrained to reverse the rejection on appeal.
In summary, this panel of the board has reversed the
rejection of claims 21 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Geraldine.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007