Appeal No. 2005-1988
Application No. 09/822,651
65-66.
In view of the fact that Shepard teaches that it is known in
the art that hook components may be hook or mushroom shaped, we
agree with the examiner that it was within the skill of one of
ordinary skill in the art to make a hook or mushroom shaped
fastener.5
In view of the above, we affirm the U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claim 38 as being obvious over Thomas in view of Shepard.
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 32, 41 and 54 as
obvious over Wessels in view Murasaki
Beginning on page 18 of the brief, appellants argue that
claims 32, 41 and 54 are not prima facie obvious over Wessels in
view of Murasaki because the references do not suggest the aspect
of the claims regarding polymeric regions fused to a first major
side of the web. We are not convinced by this argument for the
same reasons discussed supra, regarding this claim limitation.
Beginning on page 19 of the brief, appellants argue that
claims 21 and 54 are not obvious over Wessels in view of
Murasaki. Appellants argue that claims 41 and 48 recite an
elastic web.6 Appellants argue that Wessels and Murasaki do not
a hook or loop is not convincing.
5 In this regard, we refer to the bottom of page 6 of appellants’
specification, wherein appellants admit that U.S. Patent No. 5,077,870
discloses forming hooks in stems by capping the stems to form mushroom
heads.
6 We note that claim 54 does not recite an elastic web, but that
-16-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007