Appeal 2007-1400
Reexamination Control 90/006,825
Patent 6,457,239 B1
49. According to Ray, the magnetic strips retain the knife in the sheath.
(Ray at 2: 23–24.)
50. Ray further discloses that the magnetic strips may be held in place by
a suitable adhesive. (Ray at 2: 32-33.)
Procedural History
51. Following the Final Rejection, which was mailed 15 September 2004,
McLaughlin filed an amendment (14 November 2004), which the Examiner
refused to enter (Advisory action, mailed 11 January 2005).
52. McLaughlin filed an appeal brief ("Br.") on 16 June 2006, and the
Examiner's Answer ("Answer") was mailed on 30 October 2006.
53. In the Answer, the Examiner dropped rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 but maintained the rejections over prior art substantially unchanged.
(Answer at 3.)
54. McLaughlin did not file a Reply Brief.
The Examiner's Rejections and McLaughlin's Arguments
Anticipation by Villwock
55. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 as anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Villwock. (Answer at 4.)
56. The Examiner finds that Villwock describes in Figures 6 and 7 a
device for securing knives having at least two magnetically charged faces
and a magnet support having a central hinge, wherein the magnets cover part
of the knife blade. (Answer at 4.)
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013