Appeal No. 2006-0544 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/159,076
“handling” and is not used to limit the type of fastening components employed for
engagement as maintained by the examiner.
Moreover, the examiner’s reliance on In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 120 USPQ 192
(CCPA 1958) is misplaced for reasons set forth by appellants at pages 14-16 of the
brief. As for the examiner’s additional reliance on Matsushita concerning the alleged
prior art teachings related therein about engagement of fastener components followed
by manipulation, we agree with appellants (brief, pages 8 and 9, and reply brief, page 6)
that Matsushita imparts basically the same information that Siebers furnishes
concerning the manual fastening of a diaper on a wearer. The examiner has not
persuasively established how Matsushita reasonably discloses or suggests the
particular mechanical handling step of a garment after engaging the fasteners in a
garment making method, as appellants claim.
In short, the record before us does not support a conclusion
that the examiner has met the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. It follows that we do not sustain the
examiner's § 103(a)rejection on this record.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007