Appeal No. 98-3354 Page 3
Application No. 08/427,743
(3) Claims 25-27, 34, 35 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Guzik in view of Salminen.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and reply brief, and by
the examiner in the answer. As a consequence of this review we
will not sustain any of above-noted rejections.
Each of the above-noted rejections is bottomed on the
examiner's view that Guzik teaches (a) a body portion 12 which
can inherently be considered to be "flexible and resilient" and
(b) a weight means 60. In support of position (a) the examiner
opines that when the elastic members 28 and 60 of Guzik are
inserted through the holes 24, 26 that "the body will also
deform" (answer, page 6). In support of position (b) the
answer states that:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007