Appeal 2006-1400
Application 10/649,128
ANALYSIS
Turning to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
we will not sustain this rejection.
The second paragraph is concerned with the definiteness of the claim
language, and the examiner has failed to identify a problem with the text of
claim 8.
Under our authority pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) we enter the following
rejection. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on a
lack of written description. The Specification identifies various materials that
the cap 40 is made of. Listed are metal, stone, glass, plexiglass [sic, Plexiglas®],
acrylic, ceramic, mortar, fire resistant nylon, and other similar materials. None of
these materials is a fire resistant fabric. Nylon is a generic name for several rigid
polymers that can be made into filaments and woven or knitted into fabric. Nylon
by itself is not such a fabric. Thus, the Specification fails to demonstrate that
Appellant was in possession of the subject matter of a cap made of fire resistant
fabric.
Turning to obviousness, we are in agreement with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the protective covering art would have found it prima facie
obvious to have replaced the drawstring fastener of Moore or Romero with a spring
clip fastener as taught by Spector for the self-evident advantage of convenience in
adjusting the drawstring length. We are further in agreement with the Examiner
that it is within the skill in this art to fabricate the protective cover of an
appropriate size according to the size of the object desired to be covered. Finally,
the circumscribing conduit would have been an obvious modification, since both
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013