Appeal 2007-1435
Application 10/408,979
Manifestly, one of ordinary skill in the art would also have found it
obvious to design the air and moisture impermeability of the cover material
that affords the desired degree of protection from the elements. Even if we
were to find that the cover of Cooper is not breathable, which, of course, we
have not, we are satisfied that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Cooper to the degree of
permeability desired. We are also convinced that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size of Cooper’s
enclosure to accommodate larger, or much smaller, articles. It cannot be
Appellant’s argument that it would have been nonobviousness for one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the size, shape and configuration of
Cooper’s enclosure to accommodate articles of different size and shape.
Indeed, Cooper specifically discloses that the field of invention “relates
generally to collapsible enclosures for storing and protecting objects” (col. 1,
ll. 6-7).
As a final point with respect to the § 103 rejections, we note that
Appellant bases no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness,
such as unexpected results.
Appellant requests the Board to “require concurrent handling of [non-
elected claim 20] by the Examiner” (principal Br. 16, third para.). However,
as noted by the Examiner, the propriety of an Examiner’s restriction
requirement is outside the scope of our review.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013