Appeal No. 2004-1053
Application No. 09/772,409
on the strength and flexibility desired (see claims 2, 3 and 7 on
appeal).
Appellant argues that claim 12 requires the inner surface of
the neck portion to be free from adhesive while Hatton requires the
adhesive be on the neck portion to allow adjacent portions of the
neck to “snap lock” together (Brief, page 12; Reply Brief, page 2).
This argument is not persuasive. As noted by the examiner (Answer,
pages 9-10), Hatton teaches that it was well known in the art to
have a neck portion without adhesive (see prior art Figure 5 and
col. 1, ll. 56-59 and 65-67), and only teaches “one embodiment”
where the neck is covered at least in part by adhesive to create
the “snap lock” feature (col. 5, ll. 5-20 and 42-49). Therefore we
agree with the examiner that it would have been well within the
ordinary skill in this art to use adhesive on part, all or none of
the neck portion of the hanging device, depending on the bond
desired, the strength of the tab portions, and the banner or sign
that must be supported.
Appellant argues that claim 13 recites that the length of the
neck portion is less than 40% of the length of the strip while the
Hatton patent specifically uses a “long neck” to counteract the
memory forces that otherwise cause the end portions to pull away
from the banner (Brief, paragraph bridging pages 12-13; Reply
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007