Appeal 2007-2214
Application 10/032,383
We are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed above, the
difference in shear strength can be provided by having a greater surface area
of active fastening material on one end of a fastener relative to the other end
of the fastener (Specification 19). In addition, both claims 11 and 55 require
that the fastener comprises a single piece of flexible material having a
continuous active fastening surface that is substantially covered by an active
fastening material. Thus, we do not interpret claims 11 and 55 to require
that the fastener be constructed differently at its ends. Instead, the different
shear strengths can be obtained by attaching a larger portion of the fastener
to the landing material at one end than at the other end. Although Kuen does
not appear to specifically describe attaching the strap members in this way,
we agree with the Examiner that “one can consider a smaller portion of the
fastener as [having] the second shear strength and a larger portion of the
fastener as [having] the first shear strength” (Answer 10).
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claims 11 and 55 are anticipated by Kuen, which Appellants have not
rebutted. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 11 and 55 under 35
U.S.C. § 102. Claims 12-14, 16, 26, 28, 29, 31, and 33 fall with claims 11
and 55. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 7-9, 15, 30, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Kuen. With regard to claims 7 and 35, the Examiner argues
that “Kuen discloses a fastener wherein the active fastening material
comprises a plurality of loops,” but that “[i]t would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the active fastening material of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013