Appeal No. 2006-1101
Application No. 10/193,560
applied under § 102 discloses performing the here-claimed
function and argue without embellishment that there is no
foundation for the examiner's position that the prior art
structure of these respective references is capable of
performing the claimed function. This argument is not well
taken.
Each of the applied prior art devices contains all of the
structural limitations recited in the rejected claims.
Therefore, it was reasonable for the examiner to determine that
each of these prior art devices is capable of performing the
here-claimed function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As fully explained in
the Answer, the function of cutting and producing tack-seals on
a zipper relates to the material upon which the device operates
and the manner in which the device operates. In terms of
structure, there is nothing in the appealed claims or even in
the subject specification which distinguishes the device or
apparatus claimed by the appellants from the device or apparatus
disclosed in the Diez, Fukuyama, Marbach and Linkiewicz
references.
Although the applied references do not address the use of
their disclosed structures for cutting and producing tack-seals
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007