Appeal 2007-1812
Application 10/759,713
the breast pouch” (Allen, col. 2, ll. 5-8). Preferably, “the adjustable securing
member 2 includes a layer 13 of hook-like material disposed proximate one
end 11 of the support member,” which meshes with a “layer 18 of fibrous
material . . . disposed proximate the opposite end 12 of the support member”
(id. at col. 3, ll. 14-23). As depicted in Figure 1, Allen discloses a securing
member positioned completely within the perimeter of the support member.
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to modify the
wrap described in Silverberg to replace the three hook-type fasteners with a
layer of hook-like material positioned completely within the perimeter of
Silverberg’s panels, as described in Allen.
With regard to claim 1, Appellants argue that “Silverberg and Allen,
individually or in combination, fail to disclose, teach, or suggest a sling
holder having a strap having a single fastener, the fastener being positioned
completely within the perimeter of the strap” (Br. 5). In particular,
Appellants argue that the “securing member in the Allen device extends
from one end of the support member” and is therefore “not within the
perimeter of the support member” (id.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed above, Allen’s
Figure 1 depicts a securing member having “a layer 13 of hook-like material
disposed proximate one end 11 of the support member,” which meshes with
a “layer 18 of fibrous material . . . disposed proximate the opposite end 12 of
the support member” (Allen, col. 3, ll. 14-23). Both the layer of hook-like
material and the layer of fibrous material are completely within the
perimeter of the support member. Thus, we do not agree with Appellants
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013