Appeal No. 2006-1431 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/386,855
a self-locking tamper proof strap for the securement of a single
object.
The examiner responds (answer, page 6) that “[b]oth Litwin
and Heaton are utilizing tamper resistant straps and Heaton would
suggest modifying the strap of Litwin so that the apertures are
oriented perpendicular to the strap extending from the locking
block.” With respect to appellant’s assertion (brief, page 5)
that modifying Litwin to provide a second loop would destroy the
function and purpose of Litwin, the examiner asserts that
appellant’s argument is not pertinent because the claims on
appeal do not recite forming two loops or having the capability
of securing two objects. The examiner argues (id.) to the effect
that Heaton shows it to be desirable to have the strap extend
perpendicular to the apertures, and that Heaton’s structure would
provide broader utility to the strap of Litwin so as to hold a
cash bag. The examiner adds (id.) that Litwin will function in
the same fashion if the strap extended perpendicular to the
apertures in the locking block.
In the reply brief, appellant asserts (pages 2 and 3) that
since Litwin is only concerned with creation of a single loop, an
artisan would not think to modify the latch block as suggested by
Heaton because there is no reason to do so. Appellant adds
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007