Appeal No. 1999-2364
Application No. 08/562,816
and bottom sheets would have to be wide enough to allow a user
to lie between them, and, particularly in order to encompass
large sized persons, it would have been obvious to make a bag
having a width of at least about 50 inches.
For the foregoing reasons we conclude that claim 11 is
unpatentable over Chapuis under § 103.
On the other hand, we find nothing in Chapuis which would
suggest to one of ordinary skill that the Fig. 2 sleeping bag
be provided with a "zippered generally central access seam . .
. extending less than 50% the length of said bottom sheet," as
required by claim 12. We will accordingly sustain the
rejection of claim 11, but not of claim 12.
Rejection Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.196(b), claims 1 to 10, 13 to 19 and
21 are rejected for failing to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, for the following reasons.6
6Under the circumstances of this case, our conclusion
that claims 1 to 10, 13 to 19 and 21 do not comply with § 112,
second paragraph, does not preclude our consideration on the
merits of the rejections of those claims as unpatentable over
prior art. Ct. Ex parte Saceman, 27 USPQ2d 1472, 1474 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007