Appeal No. 98-1038
Application 08/438,512
were 0.1 inch. That is to say it is well within the
scope of the Bone et al reference to form the cross
bar to be 0.1 inch long [answer, pages 4 and 5].
The appellant, on the other hand, argues that
Bone et al. (854) is directed at a completely
different problem than that solved by Appellant,
namely, tampering. Instead, Bone et al. is directed
at the problems of using an individual attachment to
secure together two or more objects having a
substantial combined thickness . . . and using a
plastic fastener to hang articles of commerce or to
function as thread substitutes . . . . Bone et al.
(854) not only does not appreciate the problem of
tampering solved by Appellant but goes so far as to
state, at col. 1, lines 35-37, that conventional
fasteners "are effective in preventing shoppers from
switching tags by removing a tag from a low-priced
article, and substituting it on a higher priced
article." None of the "specific end use
applications' referred to in Bone et al. (854)
require or even benefit from a cross-bar having the
length limitation recited in claim 1. Consequently,
viewing in its proper context the statement in Bone
et al. (854) that the dimensions may be varied
depending upon the specific end use application of
the fastener, one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to reduce the length of the
cross bar to approximately 0.1 inch [brief, pages 5
and 6].
The appellant's position here is persuasive. Bone '854
does teach that the cross bar length of the fastener disclosed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007