Appeal 2006-2254
Application 10/182,369
Rather than reiterate the conflicting view points advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant concerning the above noted rejections, we refer
to the Answer, mailed February 21, 2006, and to the Briefs filed January 23,
2006 and February 28, 2006.
OPINION
The rejection under § 102
Claims 11 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Parellada.1 The Examiner has found that Parellada describes
a process for producing an adhering fastening element from a plastic
material comprising a backing element that is provided with a plurality of
interlocking elements each of which has a head component that is connected
to the backing (Answer 3). The Examiner asserts that the process of
producing the fastening element of Parellada anticipates the presently
claimed invention.
Appellant argues that Parellada does not anticipate the claimed subject
matter because: (1) Parellada does not use fastener elements comprising a
stalk and a head as an adhering fastening element; (2) Parellada does not
form mushroom-shaped head components; and (3) Parellada does not
employ preshaping elements in a sieve at the side of the sieve remote from
the pressure roller to provide preshaped outer ends of the stalk components
(Br. 6).
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner's response as appearing on pages 6 and 7 of the Answer. We also
1 Appellant has grouped the arguments for claims 11 and 21 together. We
select claim 11 as representative of these claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007