Appeal 2006-1924
Application 09/954,506
In any event, we note that Fernfors does employ separate fasteners (8)
and (13), which require two strips of fasteners. See drawing Figure 1 of
Fernfors. Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Consequently, on this record, we also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 32 and 41-47 over Fernfors in view of
Widlund, Rajala, Roessler, and/or Justmann.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
clj
Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: November 3, 2007