Appeal 2007-1917
Application 10/222,660
Rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Boeniger and Sekiguchi
The Appellant argued that claim 5 is patentable over Boeniger and Sekiguchi
because Boeniger does not anticipate or render obvious claim 5 for the same
reasons provided for claim 1. As we found supra in our analysis of the
patentability of claim 1, we find the Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Claim 6 and 8 recite first and second fastening means. The Appellant argues
that the use of “means” language invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, such that the
fastening means should be interpreted to be one and the other of the male and
female snap members (Appeal Br. 16). Even if we agree that “fastening means”
invokes § 112, ¶ 6, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification does not
limit the claimed fastening means to snap members (Answer 8). Rather, the
Specification discloses that the fastener can be any other suitable means, including,
for example, a bungee cord (Finding of Fact 18). We interpret “fastening means”
of claim 6 not to be limited to a snap fastener in view of the structure disclosed in
the Specification, and we find that Boeniger’s fasteners are equivalent to the
structure disclosed in the Appellant’s Specification (Finding of Fact 19). As such,
Boeniger discloses the claimed fastening means.
Claims 6 and 8 further recite “a mount for immovably mounting said support
structure in a desired location.” Claim 9 similar recites “a support structure
mount,” and claim 16 recites “wherein said support structure further includes a
mount permanently affixed thereto, said mount having a portion to fixedly attach
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013