Appeal 2007-1917
Application 10/222,660
that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Boeniger
anticipates claims 1, 2 and 5.
The Appellant makes the similar arguments for patentability of claim 11,
which recites “a plurality of interengageable releasable fasteners having a first part
fixed on one of said signage and support structure and another part on other of said
signage and support structure.” In particular, the Appellant argues that the ridge
(rail-like protrusion 5) of Boeniger is part of the support frame itself, and not a
separate fastener part that is “fixed” on the support frame as claimed (Appeal
Br. 14). The Appellant again misunderstands the disclosure of Boeniger. As
shown in Figures 4 and 5, Boeniger discloses a complete display frame 12, with a
plurality of spaced apart frame elements 1, each having individual rail-like
protrusions 5, where the frame elements are spaced about the perimeter of the back
of frame 12 and attached to the frame 12 by clamping fasteners 13-16 (Finding of
Fact 1). As such, Boeniger discloses a first part of the fastener (i.e., the frame
element 1 having rail-like projection 5) fixed on the support structure (i.e., frame
12) by means of clamping fasteners 13-16 (Finding of Fact 1). Further, as we
found supra for claim 1, Boeniger also discloses another part of the fastener (eyes
8) fixed on the signage (reproduction 7) (Finding of Fact 3).
The Appellant further argues that the holes in Boeniger’s sign do not
interengage with the ridge (rail-like protrusion 5), as claimed (Appeal Br. 14). We
do not see where claim 11 requires that the claimed fasteners be limited to two
pieces or require that the part of the fastener fixed on the signage directly engages
the part of the fastener fixed on the support structure. Rather, claim 11 merely
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013