Appeal 2006-1924
Application 09/954,506
In particular, Appellants (Br. 8) urge that the fastener material supply
and transfer method and equipment taught by each of Datta, Pohjola and
Rajala require a flat material member being formed and transferred onto the
garment. Moreover, Appellants (Br. 8) opine that the surplus material-
containing fastener strips allegedly required by Fernfors are not compatible
with the fastener material transfer techniques employed in Datta, Pohjola,
and/or Rajala. In this regard, Appellants allege that the fastener material
handling techniques of the latter references are designed for handling flat
members, not fastener members having surplus material as used by Fernfors.
Even if we could agree that such attorney argument was persuasive as
to the incapability of one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fastener
member transfer and handling techniques of Datta, Pohjola, and Rajala to
transfer a surplus material containing fastener strip as taught by Fernfors,
such argument would not be persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness position for a more fundamental reason. This is because
Fernfors (p. 11, ll. 9-15) teaches that flat fastener strips may be employed as
an alternative to employing surplus material containing strips. Thus, the
premise that underlies Appellants’ contentions in opposition to the
Examiner’s proposed modification of Fernfors is unsound. Consequently,
Appellants’ assertion of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection based on
the premise that Fernfors requires a surplus material containing fastener strip
is not persuasive.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we
agree with the Examiner that the applied references’ teachings would have
rendered the subject matter of representative claim 1 obvious within the
meaning of § 103(a) .
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007