Appeal No. 2001-0205 Page 6
Application No. 08/692,016
there is no teaching of securely but detachably retaining the knots “within” the slits which
extend from the holes, which is the structure recited in claim 1.
It therefore is our opinion that the teachings of Tobin and Flagg fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1, and
we will not sustain this rejection. It follows that the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5 and 9, which
depend from claim 1, also will not be sustained.
Independent claims 13 and 16 also stand rejected on the basis of Tobin and Flagg.
Claim 13 contains the same limitations regarding providing the knots and retaining the
knots in the slits of the holes, and the rejection of independent claim 13 and dependent
claims 14 and 15 is not sustained for the same reasons as were set forth above with
regard to claim 1.
Claim 16 requires the knots, and goes on to state that “said knot is drawn through
said hole within walls of said frame and securely but detachable retained therein.” Again,
there is no suggestion for adding the knots to the Tobin bag, and the rejection of claim 16
fails on that basis. In addition, while claim 16 does not require the slits, it does require that
the knots be “securely” retained. The examiner has not explained, and we cannot
appreciate, how the knots in the Flagg device can be considered to be “securely” retained,
inasmuch as they appear to be freely removable through the open top of the slot. The
rejection of claim 16 is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007