Appeal No. 2001-1402
Application 09/287,838
enclosure having the clown head (figurine), as taught by
Meier, in order to store small object[s] and to be used
as a toy when unattached to the shoe. Obviously the
device would be attached by Velcro, as the object 12 of
Gourley is attached.
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to attach
the item 1 of Meier as the object 12 of Gourley, because the
Meier item would present a hazard of snagging shoelaces,
whereas Gourley’s device is designed to reduce the possibility
of snagging. The examiner points out at page 6 of the answer,
however, that the shoelaces would not snag on the
Gourley/Meier device because they would be disposed between
elements 2 and 4. Thus, we agree with the examiner that one
of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify the
Gourley device in view of Meier, for the reason stated by the
examiner, supra.
Appellant further argues that Meier’s enclosure is not a
figurine as claimed, but we disagree for the reasons discussed
above in connection with rejection (1).
As for claims 2 and 4, we consider that Gourley discloses
the means recited therein; see the discussion of rejection
(2), supra.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007