Appeal 2006-3390
Application 10/441,783
1 which would ensure proper operating functions as well as omitting the need of a
2 fastening means (connection between the zipper guard and zipper slider) which
3 may become worn or broken. Less parts makes for a more economical structure to
4 manufacture, which affords the zipper slider to be readily attach[ed] to a closure
5 article without additional steps or processes” (Answer 5-6). The Appellant has not
6 challenged the Examiner’s reasoning.
7 For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
8 rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the invention claimed in the Appellant’s
9 claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 15 and 21. We are not convinced of reversible error in the
10 rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the additional reason that, as
11 discussed above, that claim, which requires that the slider and guard are unitary but
12 does not require that they are a single piece, is anticipated by Baroky. Anticipation
13 is the epitome of obviousness. See In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80,
14 83 (CCPA 1975); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA
15 1974).
16 DECISION
17 The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)
18 over Baroky is reversed as to claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 13 and 15, and affirmed as to
19 claim 21. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
20 over Baroky is affirmed.
21 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
22 appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(2006).
23 AFFIRMED
24
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013