Appeal 2006-2254
Application 10/182,369
note that Appellant’s arguments 1 and 2 are not directed to the process for
producing an adhering fastening element as specified by claim 11.
Regarding argument 3, Parellada employs 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 (see Figure 1).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has acknowledged that the
products of Parellada are different from the products of the claimed
invention. As such, the process of Parellada cannot anticipate the subject
matter of claim 11 (Reply Br. 2). This argument is not persuasive. The
Parellada reference, as correctly identified by the Examiner, provides a
process that includes a preshaping station and a shaping station that includes
all the process limitations of the claimed invention. It is noted that Parellada
discloses the additional step of including yarn which is subsequently
fastened into place by deforming the head portion of the stalk into a
mushroom-shaped fastener. (See para. bridging cols. 3 and 4). This
additional step is not precluded by claim 11.
Appellant argues that the description of the preshaping of the outer
ends of the stalk distinguishes the claimed invention from that of Parellada.
We do not agree. The stalk portions of Parellada like the presently claimed
invention are formed through the use of a sieve. The sieve and pressure
roller are used to provide a shaping of the outer edges of the stalk
component that is suitable for subsequent shaping into a mushroom type
fastener. (Note Figs. 6-8). The claimed subject matter does not preclude the
outer end of the stalk from having a cylindrical shape after preshaping.
Appellant's arguments regarding the use of ultrasonic energy to form
the mushroom-shaped head components are not persuasive because the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007