Appeal No. 95-0084
Application 07/857,329
150 or 42) of Standing” is clearly erroneous as explained by
appellants on page 11 of their brief. Similarly, the examiner's
apparently alternative position that “[t]he device of Falk
clearly shows an enclosure means with ridged [sic] wall as set
forth in the dependent claims of the instant application”
(answer, page 5) is not well taken, again, for the reasons stated
on page 11 of the brief.
The examiner's rejection possesses similar deficiencies with
respect to each of the appellants' other independent claims. For
example, the Standing and Falk combination simply would not have
resulted in an apparatus possessing a positioning means of the
type defined by appealed claims 45 and 46 or a pouch and
shielding means which are associated in the manner recited in
appealed claim 47 or the enclosure means defined by appealed
claim 48.
In light of the foregoing, we also cannot sustain the
examiner's § 103 rejection of the claims on appeal as being
obvious over Standing taken with Falk.
The Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejections
On pages 18 and 19 of the appeal brief, the appellants have
listed numerous claim features which are said to be neither
taught nor suggested by the respective claims of patents
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007