Appeal No. 1997-3706
Application 08/406,108
language of claim 1. Although the examiner contends that
“[a]ny end member surrounding the article [being carried] can
be considered a 'cuff'” (answer, page 6), claim 1 requires
that each cuff be “formed of a permanently closed loop of . .
. material.” Words in a claim will be given their ordinary
and accustomed meaning, unless it appears that the inventor
used them differently, Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc.,
730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and in
the context of this case, the ordinary meaning of “loop” may
be taken as “a folding or doubling of a cord, lace, ribbon,
etc., upon itself, so as to leave an opening between the
parts.” We do not consider that the slots 92 of Saari fit3
this definition, since they are not formed by any folding or
doubling of strap 72,74.
Rejection (2) therefore will not be sustained.
Rejection (3)
In this rejection, the examiner combines Saari with
Girton, Torres and Vogel, the latter three references being
cited as evidence that it would have been obvious to utilize
3The American College Dictionary (Random House, 1970).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007