Appeal No. 2005-0489 Page 5
Application No. 10/144,987
used so that it may be free to loosely slide up and down on
the halyard and also free to move transversely relatively to
the halyard.
When a flag is connected to its halyard according to
my invention there is no possibility of its being frayed,
whipped or torn because when the wind strikes it, the ring 10
of the fastener 9 is free to and will slide up an down on the
halyard and thereby permit the flag to spill the wind and at
the same time retain sufficient wind pressure to maintain it in
extended position. Ordinary wind pressure will be taken care
of by the relative transverse movement of the ring 10 while
greater pressure will be taken care of by this transverse
movement of the ring 10 plus the flexibility of the halyard
[page 1, lines 82-103].
In rejecting claim 28, the examiner’s position is that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to modify Fisher’s
flag holder for vehicles “so as to include movement of the lower fitting towards the upper
fitting, as taught by Rohrbaugh, so as to provide a means for eliminating the whipping,
fraying and tearing of the flag (column 1, lines 33-34) during striking of the wind”
(answer, page 5). With respect to the limitation in claim 28 “said lower mounting
substantially precluding said lower fitting from lateral movement with respect to the axis
of elongation,” the examiner contends that “the amount of movement due to the slight
spacing from the axis of elongation of Rohrbaugh (Fig. 4, Rohrbaugh) is comparable to
the amount of movement due [to] slight spacing from the axis of elongation of the
applicant’s invention (Fig. 4, applicant’s drawings)” (answer, page 9).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007