Appeal No. 1999-0052
Application 08/660,663
the anchoring/tethering features disclosed by Jones, much less
with the anchoring/tethering features actually recited in
claims 3 and 15 through 17.
Since the foregoing flaw in the proposed Battle-Jones
combination finds no cure in Ballard’s disclosure of a bicycle
cover or in Fasiska’s disclosure of a automobile cover
containment system, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejections of independent claims 3 and 15
through 17 or of claims 4 through 7, 10 and 13 which depend
either directly or indirectly from claim 3.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 3 through 7, 10, 13 and 15 through 17 is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007