Appeal No. 2000-2020
Application No. 09/050,558
conclude that any suggestion to modify the disclosure of Van
Heeswijk by adding the elastic pawls of Wakimizu, could not have
come from the references themselves but, rather, only from
Appellants’ own disclosure.
In conclusion, since the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claims 1 and 6, as well as claims 2-5 and 7 dependent
thereon, is not sustained. Therefore, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-7 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jfr/vsh
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007