Appeal No. 98-1922 Page 16
Application No. 08/253,721
decision of the examiner to reject claims 8 and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 11
Claim 11 reads as follows:
The slide according to Claim 10 which further
comprises grommets reenforcing said perforations.
The examiner took (answer, p. 5) official notice that
it is old and well known to provide grommets in order to
protect the edges of sheet material at the holes.
The examiner then determined that
it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
provide grommets at the holes of Maeda, as is old and
well known, in order to protect the material at the
holes, where the slide is subject to the greated [sic,
greater] stress from pulling.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 9) that the examiner
shows no relevant art that would have suggested providing
grommets as claimed. We do not agree. While the examiner has
not shown any art suggesting the use of grommets, the
appellants have not contested the examiner's use of official
notice that it is old and well known to provide grommets in
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007