Appeal No. 2000-2168
Application 09/130,383
differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus
satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Note also
Ex parte Wikdahl, 10 USPQ2d 1546, 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1989) and In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238, CCPA
1967).
We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Piper, and by Carroll,
and by Gray, separately.
On the other hand, we do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Even if we were to
agree with the examiner's position as to the combinability of
Laird with Carroll, and with the separate combinability of Gray
in view of Carroll, further in view of Laird, we would not have
arrived at the subject matter of dependent claim 2 on appeal. We
are in agreement with appellant's position set forth at pages 8
and 9 of the brief that none of the respective references relied
on by the examiner to reject dependent claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 contain any teaching or suggestion of the securing means at
the end of independent claim 1 on appeal comprising a hook and
pile fastener.
We also cannot agree either with the examiner's assertion
with respect to Laird's teaching as applicable to Carroll and in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007