Appeal 2006-1924
Application 09/954,506
Concerning the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 32 and
41-47 over Fernfors in view of Widlund, Rajala, Roessler, and/or Justmann,
we note that Appellants argue the claims as a group. Thus, we select
claim 32 as the representative claim for deciding the propriety of this
rejection.
At the outset, for the reasons advanced above and in the Answer, we
find that the combination of Rajala with Justmann and/or Roessler is
sufficient to establish the obviousness of the subject matter of representative
claim 32. Moreover, for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Answer 13-16),
we agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
subject matter of representative claim 32 in considering Fernfors together
with Widland in light of the aforementioned three reference combination.
Appellants refer to their arguments made against the other rejections
presented by the Examiner (Br. 13). For the reasons set forth above and in
the Answer, we do not find those arguments persuasive. Appellants (Br. 13)
further maintain that Widlund is not combinable with Fernfors because
Fernfors teaches against a two-fastener embodiment, as disclosed in
Widlund. Here, we agree with the Examiner’s rebuttal (Answer 21-22) in so
far as the use of one fastener with two fastener areas would have been
recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as an equivalent or an obvious
alternative to the use of two separate fasteners for most applications. As for
Appellants’ argument that Fernfors requires bridging the gap between
separable garments with a fastener material, Fernfors teaches that a strip (5)
can bridge the gap. Thus, separate fasteners can be employed as an
alternative to the single fastener (8) while the gap is bridged by the strip (5)
that is attached to the garments.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007