Appeal 2007-2606
Application 10/903,376
{Specification Fig. 1 is said to depict an exploded perspective general
assembly view of the claimed invention.}3
The Examiner has relied on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Hull US 1,448,664 Mar. 13, 1923
Wiener US 3,877,572 Apr. 15, 1975
Wenkman US 5,075,991 Dec. 31, 1991
Hull, Wiener, and Wenkman qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Wiener and claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Hull in view of either Wiener or Wenkman.
II. Findings of Fact (FF)
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence of record. To the extent any "finding of fact" is a conclusion of
law, it should be so treated.
A. Appellant's Specification
[1] Figure 1 of the Specification appears to depict opposing grooves 13a
as slots within molding sections 12c, 12d.
[2] According to the specification, opposing grooves may also be round
or convex grooves 13b, v-notched grooves 13c or concave grooves
13d (Specification 5:21-23; Figs. 3-5).
3 The captions in curly braces following the Figures are provided so the
publication of this Decision on the USPTO website complies with Section
508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act and are not part of the Decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013