Appeal 2006-2714
Application 10/228,898
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the seemingly
simple and self-aligning securement arrangement of Matechuk’s pad 10 to
carrier 20 with a hook and loop fastening arrangement. Likewise, for the
reasons cited by Appellant (Br. 10), a hook and loop securement would not
have been an obvious replacement for or accompaniment to either the
frictional engagement between resilient sanding block 10 and end portions
50 of attachment body 46 under pressure caused by the block’s resilience
(Matechuk, col. 4, ll. 39-58) or the air-tight seal formed by butting of front
edges of side walls 54 of central portion 48 of attachment body 46 against
the resilient hypotenuse surface 18 of block 10 (Matechuk, col. 4, ll. 59-66).
Matechuk utilizes the resilience of the sanding block 10 to advantage in
creating a rectangular, air-tight, air receiving plenum chamber for the
vacuum attachment of the sanding device and hook and loop fasteners would
not appear to facilitate, and in fact would appear to hinder, such an
arrangement.
In light of the above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 5, and claims 6-9 depending from claim 5, as unpatentable over
Matechuk in view of any of Loveless, Takizawa, and Sims. The rejection is
reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013