Appeal 2006-3003
Application 10/390,444
claims are pending. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6 (2002).
Appellants invented a display hook and assembly with reduced drag
(Specification [0001]). Claim 11 is illustrative of the claimed invention and
reads as follows:
11. A display hook for attachment to a vertical
support for displaying merchandise, the display
hook comprising:
a back end member structured for
attachment to a vertical support;
a product arm member supported by and
extending forwardly from the back end member
toward a retainer member, the product arm
member structured to display the merchandise via
a self-facing configuration such that merchandise
when displayed on the product arm member
migrates forwardly toward the retainer member
with the retainer member preventing merchandise
from falling off the product arm member; and
a fluoropolymer surface on at least a portion
of the product arm member, the fluoropolymer
surface configured to provide an approximate near
zero static coefficient of friction for merchandise
being self-faced on the product arm member.
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Willius US 4,898,406 Feb. 06, 1990
Brozak US 5,626,243 May 06, 1997
Kump US 5,906,283 May 25, 1999
Mattesky US 2002/0113183 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 12, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Mattesky
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013