Appeal No. 2000-1612
Application 08/938,844
as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15
USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Bourassa.
As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bourassa
in view of Thompson, we find ourselves in agreement with the
examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention
to substitute a known alternative form of fastening means,
like the strap arrangement in Thompson (2, 26, 28, 29), for
the clamping arrangement (21-25) of Bourassa.
In response to appellant’s arguments concerning the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007