Appeal No. 2006-1431 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/386,855
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (answer, page 4) is that Litwin does
not disclose the strap to extend from the latch block in a
substantially perpendicular relationship to the apertures in the
latch block. To overcome this deficiency of Litwin, the examiner
turns to Heaton for a teaching of the desirability of extending
the strap from the latch block in a substantially perpendicular
relationship to the parallel apertures so as to provide a tamper
resistant strap useful for securement around a bag.
Appellant’s position (brief, page 5) is that the creation of
a second loop in Litwin would destroy its purpose and function.
It is argued (id.) that “[t]here is no disclosure in either
Litwin or Heaton that would suggest or motivate one skilled in
the self-locking strap art to modify Litwin in the manner
proposed by the Examiner.” It is further argued (brief, page 6)
that because of the importance of the locking means and its
associated structure, Litwin is not concerned with two loops for
securing two objects, and that the creation of a second loop
would teach away from Litwin’s purpose and function of designing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007