Appeal 2007-1917
Application 10/222,660
directly connected to one another. Rather, claim 9 recites “said contact surface
having spaced apart second fastener members thereon that connected and
disconnect to said first fastener members on said back surface of said support
member manually without any tool.” In Boeniger’s display system, the first and
second fastener members connect and disconnect to one another indirectly by
means of spring 6 (Finding of Fact 4). As such, Boeniger discloses this limitation
of claim 9 and the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness of
claim 9. We consider the Appellant’s evidence of commercial success, as it
pertains to claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 infra.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15, which recites that the fasteners are snap
fasteners. As we found supra, that Boeniger does not anticipate claim 15. We
further find that there is no apparent reason why one or ordinary skill in the art, in
view of the teachings of Boehniger and Sekiguchi, would modify the fasteners of
the Boeniger display system to replace them with snap fasteners (Finding of Fact
12). As such, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16 as unpatentable over
Boeniger and Sekiguchi.
Rejections of claims 3, 4, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Boeniger and Terrels and claims 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boeniger, Sekiguchi, and Terrels
The Examiner relied on Terrels to demonstrate that a snap button type of
fastening means is well known (Answer 4). Terrels discloses the use of a snap
fastener on boats, aircraft and land vehicles to mount a canvas cover 12 on a base
19
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013