Appeal 2007-2292
Application 10/038,796
has not explained the substrate and loop material with respect to the Figure 7
embodiment of Kuen is unpersuasive as the Examiner has pointed to specific
portions of column 14 of Kuen in the Answer without any specific rejoinder
thereto by Appellants in the Briefs. Consequently, Appellants have not
identified any reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation position as set
forth in the Answer.
Representative Claim 30
Appellants make substantially the same unpersuasive arguments
against the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 as presented against the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 27. With respect to representative
claim 30, Appellants focus on that claim’s requirement for
stretching/retracting both the loop material and substrate of the loop
component and assert that the Figure 7 embodiment of Kuen does not have a
loop material and substrate. For reasons set forth above, we disagree with
Appellants’ assertions concerning the absence of both loops and a substrate
in the third (Figure 7) embodiment of Kuen and with the argument
depending thereon; that is, the argument that Kuen does not stretch and
contract (retract) the loop material and substrate (strap) in the donning and
wearing of a wearable article made in accordance therewith.
As a final point, we note that Appellants’ Reply Brief does not furnish
any further argument against the Examiner’s anticipation position, as set
forth in the Answer.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013