Appeal 2007-1917
Application 10/222,660
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 11-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Boeniger
The Appellant argued claims 1, 2, and 5 as a first group, claims 11-14 as a
second group, claims 17-19 as a third group, and claims 15 and 20 as a fourth
group (Appeal Br. 12-15). We select claims 1, 11, 17, and 15 as representative
claims, respectively, for each group. The remaining claims stand or fall with their
respective representative claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
With regard to the first group, the Appellant argued that Boeniger does not
anticipate claim 1 because it does not disclose “a plurality of spaced apart quick-
release fasteners … having at least a part thereof permanently affixed to one of
said signage and said support structure” (Appeal Br. 12). The Examiner found that
Boeniger discloses fastening means comprised of Boeniger’s rail-like protrusion 5,
tensioning spring 6, and eye 8 (Answer 3). The Appellant responded that the ridge
(rail-like protrusion 5) is part of the frame and the holes (eyes 8) are part of the
sign, and therefore are not considered part of the separate claimed fasteners that are
permanently affixed to either the frame or the sign (Appeal Br. 13). We see little
difference between the eye 8 attached to the sign of Boeniger (Finding of Fact 3)
and the female or male snap member attached to the sign of Appellant’s invention.
Similarly, we see no difference between the rail-like protrusions 5 disposed on
multiple frame elements attached around the perimeter of the frame of Boeniger
(Finding of Fact 1) and the female or male snap member attached to the frame of
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013