Appeal No. 2004-2335 Page 6
Application No. 09/867,495
The appellant argues (brief, p. 5, lines 10-12; p. 6, lines 13-14) that Vasilopoulos
does not disclose "said second end [of the elastic cord] having means for securing said
second end to a support." We agree. Given our interpretation of this claim language as
set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
must be reversed. In that regard, we note that even if the alligator clip of Vasilopoulos
were modified by the teachings of Thurston as set forth in the rejection, it would not
arrive at the claimed subject matter since the modified alligator clip of Vasilopoulos is
attached to a base ring 12 (a distinct additional component) and is not attached to the
second end of the elastic cord 30, i.e., the alligator clip is not part of the elastic cord.
The second end of the elastic cord 30 of Vasilopoulos does not have an alligator clip for
securing the second end to a support. Instead, Vasilopoulos teaches that the second
end of the elastic cord 30 has a hook as shown in Figure 2. In that regard, the bungi
cord taught by Vasilopoulos is much like the conventional prior art bungi cord depicted
in the appellant's Figure 1.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We have also reviewed the reference to De Witt additionally applied in the
rejection of claim 4 (dependent on claim 5) but find nothing therein which makes up for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007