Appeal No. 2005-0485
Application No. 09/303,632
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 33 and 34 as being unpatentable over
Yanagisawa in view of Adair and either Okamura or Young.
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21 and 24 through
26 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa in view of Adair and IBM
The examiner concedes that Yanagisawa does not meet the
limitations in independent claim 21 requiring (1) a “package” of
individual disposable transparent covers and (2) each of the
covers to comprise a film which is “plastic.” The appellants’
contention that Yanagisawa also fails to meet the claim
limitation requiring a flat planar sheet of uniform thickness
throughout due to the presence of Yanagisawa’s elastic fixing
part 34a is not persuasive for the reasons expressed above.
The examiner’s reliance on Adair as suggesting the use of
plastic to make Yanagisawa’s film is well taken for the reasons
set forth above. As for the “package” limitation in the claim,
the examiner cites IBM for (1) its disclosure of a clear plastic
cover which can be applied to a handheld computer unit to protect
it from inclement weather and (2) its teaching that the covers
may be sold in packs to facilitate discarding and replacing them
when soiled or damaged. The appellants do not specifically
dispute the examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007