Appeal No. 2002-0946 Page 5
Application No. 09/590,121
the lining 15 including on its inner surface a plurality of fairly shallow projections 16,
which appear to present a convex surface extending away from the inner surface of the
strap (see Figures 3 and 4). Alternatively, the gripping band may be embedded in a
lining 15a, as illustrated in Figure 5. In any event, the projection-forming technique of
Bram results in projections which are not rigid and which do not extend from the outer
surface to the inner surface of the strap, as called for in claim 1.
From our perspective, Halpin and Bram teach two alternative techniques for
providing gripping projections extending inwardly from the inner surface of a gripping
strap. As such, a combination of the teachings of Loxterkamp, Halpin and Bram would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention the
provision on Loxterkamp’s metallic band 2 of either projections formed by piercing all
the way through the metallic band, as taught by Halpin, or an inner elastic liner having
projections formed thereon, as taught by Bram, neither of which would arrive at the
subject matter of claim 1, for the reasons discussed above. Thus, we conclude that the
teachings of the applied references are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed invention3. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 7, 8 and 10 which depend therefrom, as being
unpatentable over Loxterkamp in view of Halpin and Bram.
CONCLUSION
3 It is elementary that to support an obviousness rejection, all of the claim limitations must be
taught or suggested by the prior art applied (see In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984-85, 180 USPQ 580, 582-
83 (CCPA 1974)) and that all words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim
against the prior art (In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007