Appeal No. 2001-0560 Page 4
Application No. 08/603,719
(translation, pages 5 and 8). Based on this disclosure, we
share appellants’ view that Heymann fails to teach or suggest
the use of more than one retaining element. Referring to
Exhibit A attached to the answer, the examiner characterizes
several portions of the mesh structure as six retaining
elements (answer, page 5), but has not provided any evidence
or explanation to support the position that these portions of
the mesh are separate elements, rather than simply parts of a
single thread, as the written disclosure of Heymann seems to
indicate.
Jore discloses a method of wrapping a cable 19 with an
open helical winding 21 of binder ribbon. However, like
Heymann, Jore neither teaches nor suggests continuously
supplying more than one elongated retainer element to a
continuously moving bundle as required by claims 99 and 100 on
appeal. It follows then that the combined teachings of
Heymann and Jore are insufficient to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness of the subject matter of claims 99 and 100
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.2
It is elementary that to support an obviousness rejection, all of the2
claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art applied (see In
re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984-85, 180 USPQ 580, 582-83 (CCPA 1974)) and that all
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007