Appeal No. 2006-0983
Application No. 09/793,057
wearer and fastener elements having high strength and toughness to
endure repeated engagement/disengagement movements” (answer, page
5).
Our problem with the examiner’s apparent position on claim 48
is that the additional reliance on Tachauer does nothing to account
for the missing disclosure or teaching in Goulait, discussed above,
regarding an overall aspect ratio for the hook component in the
range claimed by appellants. Moreover, we note that the examiner
has made no attempt in either the final rejection or the answer to
specifically address claim 48 and the limitation therein concerning
the non-uniform thickness hook backing. For those reasons, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 48 under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) based on Goulait and Tachauer.
Independent claim 31 and claims 32 through 47 which depend
therefrom stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goulait in view of Tachauer. Claim 31 differs
from independent claims 1 and 48 in that it does not include a
limitation concerning the overall aspect ratio of the hook
component. Instead, this claim defines the hook component as
including a hook backing and a plurality of hooks protruding from
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007