Appeal No. 2006-0544 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/159,076
Claims 1-19, 29, and 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over alleged admitted prior art
at page 1 of the specification in view of Siebers et al. and
Matsushita.
We refer to the brief and reply brief, and to the answer for
an exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellants
and the examiner concerning the issues before us on this appeal.
OPINION
Having considered the entire record of this application,
including the arguments advanced by both the examiner and
appellants in support of their respective positions, we find
ourselves in agreement with appellants’ position in that the
examiner has not met the burden to show, prima facie, that the
applied prior art renders the subject mater of the rejected
claims obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection advanced by the examiner
Our reasoning follows.
Appellants argue that the examiner has not fairly established that the applied
prior art discloses or suggests mechanical handling of a garment after an engagement
seam is formed via the engagement of fastening components thereof, as variously
required by all of the rejected claims. See rejected independent claims 1, 12, and 61.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007