Ex Parte Forest - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2005-1476                                                               Page 2                
              Application No. 10/174,555                                                                               


                                                   BACKGROUND                                                          
                     The appellant's invention relates to a trash receptacle having a trash bag                        
              container secured thereto.  A copy of the claims on appeal may be found in the                           
              amendment filed February 26, 2004                                                                        
                                                    The Prior Art                                                      
                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                   
              appealed claims are:                                                                                     
              Clark, Jr. (Clark)                 4,823,979                  Apr. 25, 1989                              
              Waterston                          5,092,480                  Mar. 3, 1992                               
              Beasley et al. (Beasley)           5,115,916                  May 26, 1992                               
              Sharkey                            5,429,262                  Jul. 4, 1995                               

                                                   The Rejections                                                      
                     Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                          
              Waterston in view of Clark.                                                                              
                     Claims 1, 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                      
              over Waterston in view of Clark, Sharkey and Beasley.                                                    
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                     
              the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final                       
              rejection (mailed September 8, 2003) and answer (mailed March 16, 2004) for the                          
              examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed                      









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007