Appeal No. 98-1922 Page 17
Application No. 08/253,721
order to protect the edges of sheet material at the holes.
Since the appellants have not seasonably challenged the
examiner's reliance on official notice, it is appropriate for
the examiner to continue to rely on official notice. In our
view, the combined teachings of Maeda and the official notice
taken by the examiner would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide
grommets in the openings of the slider device 3 through which
the pull string 10 passes.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 12
Claim 12 reads as follows:
The slide according to Claim 9 which further
comprises a blind hole in said compressible material for
engagement with the furniture to be moved.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 9) that the examiner has
not cited any reference where a hole as recited in claim 12
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007