Appeal 2007-1917
Application 10/222,660
recites “a plurality of interengageable releasable fasteners” where the fastener has
“a first part fixed on one of said signage and support structure and another part on
other of said signage and support structure.” As we found supra, Boeniger’s
fasteners (i.e., rail-like protrusion 5, spring 6, and eye 8) can be engaged and
disengaged by hand without a tool by merely hooking one end of the spring 6
around the protrusion 5 and the other end of the spring 6 through the eye 8
(Finding of Fact 4). As such, Boeniger’s fasteners are interengageable.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Boeniger anticipates claims 11-14.
The Appellant makes similar arguments for patentability of claim 17
(Appeal Br. 14-15), which recites “a plurality of quick-release interengageable
fasteners each including at least a portion thereof attached to one of said signage
and another portion thereof attached to said support structure.” For the same
reasons provided supra, we do not see where claim 17 limits the fasteners to being
comprised of only two portions. As such, for the same reasons provided for claim
11, Boeniger’s fasteners are interengageable and have a portion attached to the
signage and another portion attached to the support structure (Findings of Fact 1, 3,
and 4). Accordingly, we find that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Boeniger anticipates claims 17-19.
With regard to claim 15, which recites “wherein said fasteners are snap
fasteners,” and claim 20, which recites “wherein said first part and said second part
of said fastening mechanism are snap fasteners,” the Appellant argues that
Boeniger’s “spring is hooked on the ridge, not ‘snapped’ into place as described in
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013