Appeal No. 2004-1779
Application No. 09/851,639
Attention is directed to the main, supplemental and reply
briefs filed August 12, 2002, May 12, 2003 and May 5, 2004, and
to the answer mailed April 2, 2004 for the respective positions
of the appellant and the examiner regarding the merits of these
rejections.
DISCUSSION
Rendall and Adams ‘356, the primary references applied in
support of the rejections of independent claims 1 and 8,
respectively, disclose suction cup holders of the type at issue.
The appellant does not dispute the examiner’s assessment that
Rendall teaches or would have suggested a holder meeting all of
the limitations in claim 1 except for those pertaining to the
multi-sided cross sections of the suction cup neck bore and split
ring ends and that Adams ‘356 teaches or would have suggested a
holder meeting all of the limitations in claim 8 except for those
relating to the multi-sided cross sections of the suction cup
neck bore and hook end portion. The corresponding cross-sections
in these prior art devices are circular so as to permit rotation
of Rendall’s split ring ends and Adams’ hook end portion within
their suction cup neck bores. To cure these admitted
shortcomings in Rendall and Adams ‘356, the examiner turns to
Brown.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007