Appeal No. 1999-0113 Page 11
Application No. 08/472,321
that the rings of Dubach appear in most of the drawings to be circular or round in cross
section, with the exception of the I-section illustrated in Figure 18, and thus would not have
suggested a rectangular cross section. Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the examiner's
rejection of claim 49.
Rejection 3
With regard to the examiner's rejection of claims 12-14 as being unpatentable over
Orford in view of Dubach and Suarez, the appellant has chosen not to argue the patentability of
these claims separately from claim 5. Therefore, claims 12-14 shall stand or fall with
representative claim 5. As we have sustained the examiner's rejection of claim 5 as being4
unpatentable over Orford in view of Dubach, it follows that we shall also sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 12-14 as being unpatentable over Orford in view of Dubach and
Suarez.
The examiner's position with regard to claim 11, as expressed on page 5 of the answer,
is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a stretchable
textile covering on a portion of the Orford loop (hand grip) "for the purpose of enhancing the
comfort of the loop when worn by a user" in view of the nylon cover (7) which covers the
resilient pad (8) of Suarez. The appellant argues (brief, page 10), and we agree, that, even if
the covering material (7) of Suarez is a "textile" as claimed, there is no teaching or suggestion
4See Young, 927 F.2d at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091; Wood, 582 F.2d at 642, 199 USPQ at 140.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007