Appeal No. 1999-2371 Page 6
Application No. 08/909,834
For the reasons set forth above, the combined teachings of Hiraki, Notoya and
Raymond fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter of independent claim 8, and we will not sustain the rejection. The same is true with
regard to independent claims 1, 7 and 14, which contain the same limitations, and
dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13.
Dependent claims 4 and 11 stand rejected on the basis of the references cited
against claim 1 et al., taken further in view of Nakamura, which is cited for its teaching of
sizing the body of the fastener so it provides a snug fit with the receptacle. Be this as it
may, Nakamura does not overcome the problems with the basic rejection pointed out
above. This rejection is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007