Appeal 2007-2214
Application 10/032,383
extends continuously from a portion for anchoring generally at the first waist
region to a portion for fastening generally at the second waist region, and
that the active fastening surface be substantially covered by an active
fastening material. Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that claims 52
and 55 read on the embodiment depicted in Kuen’s Figure 1. Although each
of hook regions 56 substantially covers an active fastening surface, we do
not agree that they substantially cover an active fastening surface that
extends continuously from a portion for anchoring generally at the first waist
region to a portion for fastening generally at the second waist region.
In addition, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not set
forth a prima facie case that it would have been obvious to cover the entire
surface of Kuen’s strap with hooks. Kuen discloses that the “loop material
may be attached only at the forward and rearward end portions . . . , or along
the entire length of the strap member” (Kuen, col. 14, ll. 45-48). In contrast,
Kuen only discloses attaching hook patches “at each end portion . . . of each
strap member” (id. at col. 9, ll. 16-18). Because we agree with Appellants
that attaching hooks along the entire length of Kuen’s strap would cause it to
“rub against and irritate the wearer” (Br. 14), we agree with Appellants that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify
Kuen in this way.
We conclude that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case
that claims 7 and 35, or claims 8 and 9, which depend from claim 7, would
have been obvious over Kuen. We therefore reverse the rejection of
claims 7-9, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013