Appeal No. 2002-1587
Application No. 09/102,882
movement of the strap (column 3, lines 17 through 19 and lines 33
through 37).
We, of course, fully comprehend the examiner’s viewpoint as
to the teaching of the patent to Martin relative to the cable tie
defined in claim 18. However, in our opinion, the flexible pawl-
like member of the Martin reference cannot fairly be considered
to denote a deflectable locking element that upon insertion of
the strap into the passageway in either said direction places the
locking element and strap teeth in direct non-releasable locking
engagement, as now claimed. As a concluding point, we simply note
that the Paradis patent does not overcome the deficiency of the
Martin reference. For the above reasons, we cannot support the
rejection on appeal.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained
the obviousness rejection before us.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007