Ex parte Beltrani

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 19, 2001

08804466 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 19, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte GIOVANNI BATTISTA BELTRANI
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-0902
Application No. 08/804,466
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before FRANKFORT, STAAB, and McQUADE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection
of claims 1-5 and 7-12, and from the examiner’s refusal to
allow claim 17, added by an amendment filed subsequent to the
final rejection. Claim 13, the only other claim currently
pending in the application, has been indicated by the examiner
as being allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Appeal No. 2000-0902
Application No. 08/804,466
2
Appellant’s invention pertains to an adjustable back
strap for diving and swimming equipment. A further
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 1 which appears in the appendix to
appellant’s brief.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in
support of the rejections are:
Currie 2,799,020 Jul. 16,
1957
Daley 3,339,206 Sep. 5,
1967
Krauss 5,144,725 Sep. 8,
1992
Zachry, Jr. (Zachry) 5,181,280 Jan. 26,
1993
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:
(a) claims 1-5 and 17, unpatentable over Zachry in view
of Currie;
(b) claim 4, unpatentable over Zachry in view of Currie
and Daley; and
(c) claims 5 and 7-12, unpatentable over Zachry in view
of Currie and Krauss.
Reference is made to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 16) and
Appeal No. 2000-0902
Application No. 08/804,466
3
to the examiner’s final rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 11
and 17) for the respective positions of appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
Rejection (a)
Independent claim 1, the broader of the two independent
claims on appeal, calls for an adjustable back strap
comprising a pair of attachment members connected to ends of a
strap for securement to equipment for diving and swimming, at
least one of the attachment members being provided with
adjustment means to vary the length of the strap,
. . . and buckle means provided on said strap to
perform quick opening and closing of said strap,
wherein said strap is formed by two distinct and
separate strap sections each having respective first
and second ends, the first end of each section being
connected to a respective one of said attachment
members and said buckle means being connected to
said second ends of said strap sections for
connecting and separating said strap sections
relative to each other.
Independent claim 17 contains similar limitations.
Zachry pertains to a strap retainer 10 (see Figure 1) for
attaching a retaining strap 60 to safety equipment such as
goggles 50 for quick positioning, securing and release of the
equipment by the user. The strap retainer 10 includes a clamp
Appeal No. 2000-0902
Application No. 08/804,466
4
section 20 for varying the effective length of the strap 60
and an attaching means 40 for attaching the strap retainer to
the goggles.
Currie pertains to a diving mask, and in particular to a
diving mask wherein a mask body 10 of rubber material is
initially molded as an integral one piece, substantially flat,
band-like preform (see Figure 2), and then deformed around a
lens element 34 and bonded at edges 30, 32 to form a finished
mask.
The examiner correctly finds that Zachry’s strap retainer
10 corresponds to the claimed attachment members having
adjustment means for varying the length of the strap. The
examiner further correctly finds that the strap of Zachry is
not formed by two distinct and separate strap sections that
can be opened and closed by means of a buckle, as now claimed.
Turning to Currie, the examiner finds that this reference
teaches a buckle 23’ located at the ends of straps 16 and 18
for securing the straps behind a wearer’s head. Based on
these findings, the examiner concludes (final rejection, pages
2-3) that it would have been obvious
Appeal No. 2000-0902
Application No. 08/804,466
5
to use the buckle of Currie on the strap of Zachry
in order to provide a strap which can be readily
detached from the goggle frame or adjusted in length
(as taught by Zachry) as well as being readily
securable about the back of the head of the wearer
as suggested by Currie.
We cannot support this rejection. Initially, we consider
that the proposed modification of Zachry would result in a
needless duplication of parts (namely, adjusting means) in
Zachry for no apparent purpose other than to meet the terms of
the claims. In this regard, since the strap retainer 10 of
Zachry already provides for both adjustment of the length of
the strap (column 3, lines 48-63) and removable attachment of
the strap to
Appeal No. 2000-0902
Application No. 08/804,466
6
the goggles (column 3, line 64 through column 4, line 24),
there would appear to be no cogent reason for providing an
additional buckle on the strap.
Moreover, the thrust of Zachry is the provision of a
strap retainer especially useful for safety equipment such as
goggles, face masks or respirators to protect the eyes and
face from foreign and often hazardous materials (column 2,
lines 39-43). To this end, goggles 50 are intended to be
quickly pulled over a hardhat or other headgear, placed over
the eyes, and the retaining strap then tightened by pulling
the end of the strap back away from the face and through the
clamp section 20 to securely tighten the goggles, all in a
matter of approximately
3 seconds (column 2, lines 10-21). In light of this intended
use, the critical need for providing secure retention of the
strap in a tightened condition would render the provision of
an additional buckle such as that shown in Currie of little or
no use, and in fact might even be counterproductive because it
may very well provide an additional point of strap release.
Finally, since neither of the references individually
teaches two distinct and separate strap sections each having
Appeal No. 2000-0902
Application No. 08/804,466
1The strap sections 16, 18 of Currie, being integrally
molded with the body of the mask, are not seen as teaching or
suggesting this claim limitation.
7
respective first and second ends,1 it is inappropriate, in our
opinion, for the examiner to view their collective teachings
as suggesting such an arrangement.
The mere fact that the prior art could be modified does
not make such a modification obvious absent suggestion of the
desirability of doing so. See, for example, In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). From our
perspective, the only suggestion for putting the selected
pieces from the references together in the manner proposed by
the examiner is found in the luxury of hindsight accorded one
who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure. This, of course,
is not a proper basis for a rejection. See In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1266 n.15, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.15 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
standing § 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 17 as being
unpatentable over Zachry in view of Currie.
Rejections (b) and (c)
Appeal No. 2000-0902
Application No. 08/804,466
8
We have carefully reviewed the Daley reference
additionally applied in the rejection of claim 4, and the
Krauss reference additionally applied in the rejection of
claims 5 and 7-12, but find nothing therein to render obvious
what we have found to be lacking in Zachry and Currie. We
therefore shall not sustain either of these rejections.
Conclusion
Each of the examiner’s rejections is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LJS:hh
Appeal No. 2000-0902
Application No. 08/804,466
9
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037-3202