Appeal No. 98-1314
Application No. 08/421,640
with leading and trailing spaced-apart regions separated by a
spacing section and a spacing distance. See also pages 7 and
8 of the specification which refers to various advantages
being attributable to a "distinctive gap-interval sequential
fastening," without making any reference whatsoever to the
substantially T-shaped configuration of the leading region of
the securing means. In our view, notwithstanding the nebulous
reference to "various aspects" on page 3, the specification
taken as a whole fails to provide a basis for concluding that
the particular configuration of the leading region of the
securing means (i.e., substantially T-shaped) is in any way
significant or results in a fastener which performs and
operates any differently than the prior art. Accordingly, we
are of the opinion that the claimed configuration of the
leading region of the securing means does not serve to
patentably distinguish the claims under consideration over the
arrangement of either Krushnel or Flug.
In the reply brief, the appellants argue that "the
structures taught by Krushnel and Flug et al. cannot
'inherently' provide the peel strength and Gurley stiffness
values called for by the particular claims of applicants" (see
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007