Appeal No. 2000-0305 Page 18
Application No. 08/887,453
Claims 6 and 7
The appellant argues (brief, p. 14) that Alwitt's case is
of "unitary construction," wherein there is no distinct
boundary (i.e., an independent wall as recited in claim 6).
We do not agree. In our view, the claimed independent wall is
readable on Alwitt's teaching (column 2, lines 50-58) that the
cover may be manufactured from more than one piece of
material.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Alwitt is affirmed.
Rejection (3)
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen in
view of Alwitt. In that regard, the deficiency of Andersen
discussed above with respect to claim 1 is not cured by the
examiner's determination (answer, p. 8) that it would have
been obvious in view of Alwitt to make Andersen's casing from
neoprene rubber.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007