Appeal 2007-1060
Application 10/822,549
rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, and 11-15, but we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 10.
Although the buckles depicted in the drawings of Appellant and Dillin
are different in appearance, we concur with the Examiner that Dillin
describes a buckle within the scope of claims 1, 8, 9, and 11-15 within the
meaning of § 102. Regarding claim 1, Appellant maintains that Dillin does
not describe the buckle having a "slot being configured and dimensioned to
accommodate longitudinal pinching and lateral insertion of said strap into
said receiving channel" (claim 1, last para.). However, we agree with the
Examiner that "Dillin does meet the claim limitation since the slot that is
defined by the two free ends of the head C as seen in Figure 4 has a smaller
dimension than the recess F that has 'substantially the same diameter as the
flexible tie or cord E'" (page 7 of Answer, third full sentence). While
Appellant points out that recess F of Dillin is substantially the same diameter
as the flexible tie or cord E and, therefore, does not require pinching, the
Examiner correctly points out that the gap or slot defined by the free ends of
flanges C is narrower than recess slot F. Moreover, the claim recitation is
also a function of the thickness of the strap or cord which forms no part of
the claimed buckle. Manifestly, recess F of Dillin is capable of pinching a
cord of appropriate thickness.
Appellant also contends that the undersides of Dillin's flanges are not
configured "to releasably wedge said end tab in and prevent withdrawal of
said end tab from said receiving channel via said exit end" (claim 1, last two
lines). It is Appellant's position that the cord of Dillin is prevented from
slipping outwardly by the bight N. However, we agree with the Examiner
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013