Appeal No. 2004-1009
Application No. 09/785,382 Page 7
commended itself to one of ordinary skill in the art. While
appellants’ seemingly argue that claim 2 requires that a hook is
incorporated in the power cord, we do not find that the language
of claim 2 is so limiting. To the extent appellants may be
suggesting that claim 2 should be interpreted as requiring a
power cord with a hook grasping means incorporated therein, an
interpretation with which we also disagree, we find that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the power
cord could include elements, such as the bushing (34) of Weiss or
loops of material either added thereto or made with the power
cord itself that would function as a hook grasping means.
Accordingly, on this record, we will sustain the examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 2.
Claim 6
Concerning dependent claim 6, we agree with the examiner that
the combined teachings of Vallis and Scivoletto reasonably
suggest that tethers (straps) such as taught by Scivoletto
(drawing figure, element 28 and column 2, lines 56-61) are an art
recognized option for securing attachments to a hair dryer, such
as the brush attachment of Vallis with a reasonable expectation
of success. As the examiner explains (answer, page 5), one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use such tethers
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007