Appeal 2007-3304
Application 10/488,775
forces.” All that is taught by the Specification is that the “planar element . . .
is formed of a flexible or resilient material such as polyester which is
sufficiently stiff or is treated to be sufficiently stiff to ensure that, in normal
circumstances such as normal movement or normal external forces such as
the wind, it lies against the leg in a sufficiently flat manner that the images
remain viewable at all times, but is not so stiff as to cause injury if another
person collides with the wearer.” (Specification 3.) Therefore, as taught by
the Specification, while the image must remain viewable, there is still a
certain amount of flexibility in the planar element, such as flexibility
imparted by a material such as polyester.
Raeburn teaches that the sash and tassel are made from “woven sash
material.” (Raeburn, col. 2, ll. 46-49.) Raeburn further teaches, as quoted
by the Examiner (Answer 5, quoting Raeburn col. 3, ll. 25-35), that “[t]his
looped area maintains the tassel member in position.” Thus, in conjunction
with the looped area, the woven sash material is of sufficient stiffness that it
allows the tassel member, which hangs below the sash, to maintain its
position. Raeburn therefore does teach that the woven material of the sash
and tassel are “of sufficient stiffness to lie against the leg, in use” such that
“the images . . . remain viewable during normal movement of the body and
normal external forces.”
CONCLUSION
In summary, we find that Raeburn anticipates appealed claims 1 and
9, and the rejection is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013