Appeal No. 2002-0101
Application No. 09/384,546
the view, as noted above, that the exact shape of the patches of
hook-and-loop fastener is not a patentable distinction.
Appellant in the reply brief argues about the non-damaging
aspects of the hook-and-loop fastener of the claims on appeal.
Here again, with respect to claim 1, for example, the strips are
merely adapted to have the use of being attachable and removable
from a wall. Additionally, Lapsker discloses the exact type of
hook-and-loop fasteners claimed, at least to the scope of the
claims on appeal. Even if it were true that appellant was first
to disclose this non-damaging feature of hook-and-loop fasteners,
a new use for an old article must be claimed as a method. It
does not serve to patentably distinguish one article from
another.
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
and the rejections of claims 2-6, that fall therewith.
Turning to claim 9, we are in agreement with the examiner
that providing an extra supply of second strips of hook-and-loop
fastener would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Given
the nature of the hook-and-loop fasteners and the adhesive placed
thereon and the outdoor environment (park, field or parking lot)
disclosed by Lapsker, one of ordinary skill would have found it
obvious to supply extra hook-and-loop material in the event the
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007