Appeal No. 2004-1586
Application No. 10/132,863
argue that the way in which Kasprzycki fastens the card 18 to the
key chain 12 is excluded by claim 1 on appeal. See the Brief,
pages 9-10. We do not agree.
As indicated supra, claim 1 on appeal does not preclude
“fixedly securing” the card 18 to the key chain 12 via a key tag
10. The claim does not specify or exclude any particular
securing device for fastening the claimed panel to the claimed
key retainer. As such, we concur with the examiner that
Kasprzycki describes the subject matter of claim 1 within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
It follows that the examiner’s decision rejecting claim
1 under Section 102(b) is affirmed.
We turn next to the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of
claims 1 and 4 through 7 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of either Edge or Sports Pub, and Kasprzycki. As
indicated supra, Kasprzycki discloses a key chain assembly
comprising a card 18 fixedly secure to a key chain 12 via a key
tag 10. We find that Kasprzycki teaches that this key chain
assembly is used with a hotel key or like, thus implying that the
key chain assembly is given to a customer by a hotel
establishment. See column 1, line 8. We find that Kasprzycki
teaches using various marketing panels, advertising sheets or
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007