Appeal No. 98-2049
Application 08/549,061
argument that Schweitzer falls short in this regard (see pages
4 and 5 in the brief) is persuasive.
More particularly, the examiner’s determination that
Schweitzer’s keepers 15, 15a constitute a securing means
having the properties called for in claim 1 (see pages 5 and 6
in the answer) finds no factual support in the disclosure of
the Schweitzer reference (or in the disclosure of Application
264,186, now U.S. Patent No. 3,249,356, mentioned therein),
and
rests on a characterization of Schweitzer’s keepers which is
completely unreasonable. Since Muys’ disclosure of a jump
rope having a handle-swivel construction of the sort recited
in the appealed claims does not overcome this deficiency in
Schweitzer, we are constrained to conclude that this reference
combination fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in
claim 1 and in claims 2 through 5, 7 and 8 which depend
therefrom.
Dependent claims 6 and 9 further define the securing
means recited in parent claim 1 as being hook and loop
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007