Appeal No. 97-0032
Application No. 08/095,295
opposite sides, a bottom and a top opening as recited in claim
36. At best Connell would have suggested to an artisan to modify
Warren's purse by providing the loops 31 and the fastening member
32 on the flap side of the purse so that the flap would engage
the outer side (webbing 20) of the garter. Thus, Connell does
not provide any suggestion or motivation to modify the flap on
Warren's purse to extend down adjacent the inner side of the belt
and to be removably fastened thereto. Since all the limitations
of claim 36 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 claim 36.
Based on the foregoing, the examiner's decision rejecting
claims 21-32 and 34-36, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
The opinions of the panel members regarding the examiner's
rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 follow.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007