Appeal No. 2006-1328
Application No. 10/379,307
with apertures as taught by Prueher, as suggested by the
Examiner, it would probably weaken the fingers formed by the
slits design for holding a bottle to the extent that the bottle
may not [sic, be] supported properly” (sentence bridging pages
6 and 7 of brief). First, appellant has presented no evidence to
support such a speculative assertion. Secondly, we are confident
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to design the size of the apertures such that a balance between
support and the prevention of tears is effected.
We now turn to the Section 102 rejection of all the appealed
claims over Mattia. Mattia, like appellant, discloses a dryer
sheet enhancer for a clothes dryer, and we agree with the
examiner that the enhancer of Mattia includes a flexible member
that meets the requirements of the appealed claims. Figure 4 of
Mattia, when read in light of the patent to Kingry that is
incorporated by reference, depicts a flexible member having
incisions therein with apertures at the end of the incisions. It
is the appellant’s contention that securement devices 20 of
Mattia which extend through the upper layer of the holder 15 and
into a cavity, do not meet the claim requirement for forming an
incision “through said flexible member.” However, we agree with
the examiner that the claims on appeal do not require that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007