Appeal No. 2004-1366
Serial No. 10/056,712
IV. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view
of Mah taken in combination with Santmann.
We have carefully considered the record on appeal in light
of the positions taken by the appellant and the examiner. Having
done so, we shall affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 2, but
reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-6, for the
following reasons:
With regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 4-5 under 35
U.S.C. § 102, we find that Mah anticipates all of the features
recited in independent claim 1 except for the “straps” which the
claim requires as a component of a body halter or harness.
We agree with the examiner that all of the other elements
recited in the claim read on elements of the apparatus disclosed
in Mah as amply explained in the examiner’s answer (pages 3-4).
While appellant argues that the shackle 146 depicted in Mah (Fig.
7) cannot be construed as a “support bar”, we agree with the
examiner that the term “support bar” is broad enough to encompass
the depicted shackle. According to the dictionary definition of
a “bar”, as quoted in appellant’s own brief, a bar is a solid or
rigid piece of material longer than it is wide. In other words,
a bar of material is not necessarily straight and, thus, can be
curved or bent as is the arm of the shackle in Mah.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007