Appeal No. 2004-1053
Application No. 09/772,409
(section 103(a)) and reference (Hatton) is employed in each
separate rejection.
With regard to claim 1 on appeal, the examiner finds that
Hatton discloses a polymer strip with two tab portions, an adhesive
on the inner surfaces of the tab portions, and a neck portion
(Answer, page 5). The examiner recognizes that Hatton does not
specifically teach a polymer strip having a thickness between about
3 and about 20 mil (id.), although Hatton teaches that the use of
“thin sheets” was known in the art (Answer, page 8). However, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in this art at the time the invention was made to
have made the strip of various polymers with varying thicknesses
(id.). We agree.
Appellant argues that the hanging devices in Hatton addressed
the “gravitational strain” by using relatively thick (e.g., about
23 mil) high density polyethylene strip material, and thus there
would be no motivation to decrease the thickness of the prior art
hanging device (Brief, page 11). This argument is not well taken
for several reasons. First, as noted by the examiner (Answer, page
8), Hatton does not disclose or suggest that the thickness of the
strip is about 23 mil. Accordingly, appellant’s argument is not
directed to any reference disclosure. Secondly, Hatton teaches
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007