Appeal No. 98-1242 Page 6
Application No. 08/498,884
We point out here that it is not necessary, according to the
claim language, that the second strap be fastened to the body
portion at a point directly opposite to the first strap, but
only that it “extend laterally away” from the body “oppositely
from” the first strap, which we interpret to mean simply in the
opposite direction.
Claims 3, 4 and 7 also depend from claim 1, but since
their patentability was not separately argued, they fall with
claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1570, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 7 is sustained.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejections under Section 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness
(see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993)), which is established when the teachings of
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007