Appeal No. 97-0032
Application No. 08/095,295
Touzani does teach the use a pleated bottle wherein each pleat
has a long section and a short section such that each pleat will
be bistable, Touzani fails to include any suggestion or
motivation to apply that teaching to a pleated purse. Since all
the limitations of claims 31 and 34 are not taught or suggested
by the applied prior art, the examiner has failed to meet the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Thus, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claims 31 and 34, or of claim 35 which depends
therefrom.6
CLAIM 36
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 36 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. 17-18)
that the applied prior art does not suggest the distal end of the
flap extending over the top opening of the compartment and down
adjacent the inner side of the belt and the distal end of the
6We have also reviewed the Connell reference additionally
applied in the rejection of claim 35 but find nothing therein
which would have suggested the limitation discussed above.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007