Appeal No. 2002-0357
Application 09/433,988
equipment bag disclosed by Mizuno so as to respond to the shelf
limitations in independent claims 1, 11, 13, 17, 20, 24 and 25.
Hence, Mizuno, Gerch ‘748, Gerch ‘154, Plough and Shyr,
applied in the manner proposed by the examiner, fail to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject
matter recited in independent claims 1, 11, 13, 17, 20, 24 and
25.3 Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 11, 13, 17, 20, 24 and 25, and
dependent claims 2 through 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 26
through 40, as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Shyr and
any one of Gerch ‘748, Gerch ‘154 or Plough.
III. Matter for further consideration
Upon return of the application to the technology center, the
examiner should consider whether it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to add fence clips, admitted to
be prior art by the appellant, to the locker bag disclosed by
Shyr, and if so whether this prior art combination, considered in
conjunction with the appellant’s declaration evidence of non-
obviousness, warrants a 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of any of
the appealed claims.
3 This being so, we find it unnecessary to delve into the
merits of the appellant’s declaration evidence of non-
obviousness.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007