Appeal No. 97-0032
Application No. 08/095,295
Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d
1788, 1792 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
CLAIMS 21 THROUGH 30
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 21
and 26 as being unpatentable over Warren in view of Connell,
Worrall and Touzani, we agree with the appellants that the
claimed invention would not have been rendered obvious by the
applied prior art. In that regard, we agree with the appellants
(brief, pp. 15-17) that the applied prior art does not suggest an
elongated flexible flap extending under the bottom of the bellows
compartment, up adjacent the outer wall of the bellows
compartment and over the top opening of the bellows compartment
to either the inner wall of the bellows compartment (claim 26) or
the belt (claim 21).
As to these limitations the examiner stated that the size3
of the flap is dependent on the security desired and that a
larger flap obviously creates better security for the articles
placed therein. Assuming arguendo, that this is true, the
3The specific limitations are found on lines 18-21 of claim
21 and lines 10-13 of claim 26.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007