Appeal No. 2000-0305 Page 20
Application No. 08/887,453
Rejection (5)
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen in view of
De Putter. In that regard, the deficiency of Andersen
discussed above with respect to claim 1 is not cured by the
examiner's determination (answer, p. 9) that it would have
been obvious in view of De Putter to modify Andersen's casing
to include a belt-engaging portion.
New ground of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Alwitt. As set forth above, Alwitt
anticipates claim 1. The additional claim limitations of
dependent claims 2 and 3 are clearly met by Alwitt's teaching
(column 3, lines 14-20) that the body 14 and cover 16 are made
of resilient, deformable, waterproof material, most preferably
both are made of the same material such as neoprene rubber.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007