Appeal No. 2006-1101
Application No. 10/193,560
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
Claim 2 is rejected as being unpatentable over Fukuyama in
view of McLean and/or Brey; and
Claim 2 is rejected as being unpatentable over Marbach in
view of McLean and/or Brey.
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer respectively for a
complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above-noted
rejections.
OPINION
We fully agree with the findings of fact, conclusions of
law and rebuttals to argument expressed by the examiner in her
Answer. We add the following comments for emphasis.
Each of the § 102 rejections is based on the examiner's
position that each of the applied references expressly discloses
structure (i.e., a heating element, a plunger and a blade)
corresponding to the appellants' claimed structure and that the
prior art structure would be capable of performing the function
recited in the rejected claims (e.g., cutting and producing
tack-seals on a zipper). In support of their patentability
viewpoint, the appellants point out that none of the references
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007