Appeal No. 2006-2182 Page 3
Application No. 10/670,623
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 20
In the rejection of independent claims 1 and 12, the examiner determined
that Anderson discloses all of the elements of these claims except for the limitation
of the cord being elastic (claim 12) and the limitation of a cover extending between
the first end and the second end of the cord (claims 1 and 12). Answer, pp. 3-4.
The examiner found that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention, in view of Anderson’s teaching of making a
cord of flexible material such as steel wire cable, to have modified the cord to
make it of an elastic material “for the purpose of providing an alternative, flexible,
mechanically equivalent material for the cord based on the materials [sic]
suitability for the intended use and since such a modification would not have
produced any unexpected results.” Answer, pp. 3-4. The examiner relied on
Dalmaso for the teaching of a cover and found that it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sling
of Anderson to add a cover over the cord “for the purpose of providing a means for
providing shock absorption to the device to dissipate the shock forces generated by
the rapidly decelerating object.” Answer, p. 4.
We agree with the appellants that the examiner has failed to make a prima
facie showing of a motivation, teaching, or suggestion to modify the Anderson
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007