Appeal No. 1999-2733
Application 08/230,634
the screen by a body of cement 70 (Figure 6 of Renton’s drawings) or rivets 71 (Figure 7 of
Renton’s drawings).
In view of the foregoing, we agree with appellant that Renton does not expressly or
inherently disclose a flexible closure sheet that (a) is perforated and (b) also has a permanent
memory set as required by claim 70. Accordingly, in light of the case law cited supra, the
Renton patent is not a proper anticipatory reference for the subject matter of independent claim
70 and claims 71-73 and 77-80, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 70. We must
therefore reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 70-73 and 77-80 under § 102(b).
We also must reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 74-76 under §
103. Neither Taber nor Smith teaches a screen or perforated sheet that has a permanent
memory set as required by appealed claim 70. Accordingly, neither Taber nor Smith serves to
rectify the deficiencies of Renton.
This application is remanded to the examiner to determine if the recitation of a
flexible sheet in claim 70 is broad enough to read on Renton’s self-coiling, spring metal strips
which are perforated in Figure 7 to receive the rivets 71.
The examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
AND
REMANDED
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007