Appeal No. 2006-1431 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/386,855
(reply brief, page 3) that the focus of the analysis should not
be the fact that claim 9 does not recite forming two loops or
securing two objects, but rather whether an artisan would look to
Heaton for the purpose of modifying the latch block of Litwin.
It is additionally argued (id.) that the location of the
apertures in the locking block in relation to the strap is
significant in order for the device to function as intended.
Changing the location of the apertures in the locking block in
relation to the strap would adversely affect the locking means of
Litwin.
From the disclosure of both Litwin and Heaton, we find that
both references are directed to a single piece tie or strap that
is self locking and tamper resistant (Heaton, page 1, line 3 and
page 5, line 32 through page 6, line 7; and Litwin col. 1, line
63 and col. 2, lines 27-29). From these disclosures we agree
with the examiner that an artisan would have been motivated to
modify the tie strap of Litwin to provide the increased
capability of securing more than one object (or more than one
bundle of objects) with the tie strap as taught by Heaton.
However, for the reasons which follow, we find that the resultant
structure would not meet all of the limitations of independent
claim 9. Upon modifying Litwin as taught by Heaton, we find that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007