Appeal No. 1999-1494
Application 08/596,062
1970). Each of the claims in the Bernard patent recites a
cable tie comprising, inter alia, a pocket or pocket means in
the locking head of the tie. Appealed claims 1, 2, 4 through
7 and 9 do not require the cable tie recited therein to have
such a pocket or pocket means. The examiner has not proffered
any prior art evidence to establish that the variation
embodied by this difference would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing obviousness-
type double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 7
and 9 as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 16 of the
Bernard patent in view of Woods.
Finally, the application is remanded to the examiner to
consider whether the disclosures of Reynolds and/or Woods
justify a prior art rejection of any of the appealed claims.
For
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007