Appeal No. 2000-1555
Application No. 08/922,929
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Olsen 4,847,818 Jul. 11, 1989
Seager 5,274,613 Dec. 28, 1993
Blonder et al. (Blonder) 5,381,387 Jan. 10, 1995
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-24 and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Blonder.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olsen in view of Blonder.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Blonder in view of Seager.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blonder in view of Olsen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints of the
Examiner and Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we
make reference to the answer (Paper No. 10, mailed December 16,
1999) for the Examiner’s reasoning, the appeal brief (Paper No.
9, filed September 13, 1999) and the reply brief (Paper No. 11,
filed February 1, 2000) for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1,
Appellant argues that the term “stiff,” as used by Blonder, means
that strap 10 and top layer 12 could take any position and retain
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007