Appeal No. 2003-1363
Application No. 09/608,985
can we sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Wollman.
Irrespective of the conclusions reached by the examiner
relative to dependent claims 4 and 16 (answer, page 7), dependent
claim 12, and independent claim 18 (answer, page 8), and
consistent with our above understanding of the overall Miller
teaching, it is quite clear to us that Miller alone, and in
combination with Wollman, would not have been suggestive of the
claimed mating structure that prevents a retention loop from
sliding freely (claims 1 and 18). It is for this reason that the
obviousness rejections cannot be sustained.
In summary, this panel of the Board has not sustained the
enablement rejection, the description rejection of claim 19, the
anticipation rejection, and the obviousness rejections. However,
we have sustained the description rejection of claims 6 through
10, 16, and 17.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007