Appeal No. 98-1314
Application No. 08/421,640
The arguments of the appellants and examiner in support
of their respective positions may be found on pages 14-29 of
the brief, pages 1-4 of the reply brief, and pages 7 and 8 of 2
the answer.
OPINION
Considering first the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
(a) claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11-15, 17-22, 25-35, 37 and 38 as
being unpatentable over Krushnel in view of Rossini and (b)
claims 1, 2, 4, 6-15, 17-22, 25-35, 37 and 38 as being
unpatentable over Flug in view of Rossini, the appellants
vigorously contend that the provision of a (1) substantially
T-shaped securing means leading region (independent claims 1,
21 and 37), (2) a substantially T-shaped securing means
leading region with a narrowed medial region (dependent claim
17) and (3) a substantially T-shaped securing means with a
2In both the brief and reply brief, the appellants have
relied on an unpublished Board opinion ("Ex parte William
Garrett"). We must point out, however, that unpublished Board
opinions are not binding as precedent (Ex parte Holt, 19
USPQ2d 1211, 1214 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991)) and citing such
a decision as precedent is improper and inappropriate (see Ex
parte Vossen, 155 USPQ 109, 110 (Bd. App. 1967)).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007