Appeal No. 95-4134
Application 08/099,090
We next look to the examiner's prior art rejections of
the appealed claims, turning first to the rejection of claims
1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Bisberg. After a careful assessment of appellant's claims 1, 3
and 4 and of the Bisberg reference, we must agree with
appellant that the protective sheet (44a), the partial opaque
mask (50) and the full opaque mask (52) pointed to by the
examiner in Bisberg are not the same as or equivalent to the
"holder means" required in appellant's claim 1 on appeal. In
accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the
"holder means" in appellant's claim 1 is understood to be a
structure like that seen, for example, at (50) in appellant's
drawing Figures 7 through 14 and equivalents thereof. The one
common characteristic that each of the holder means seen in
appellant's above-noted drawing figures share is that they
include some form of pocket to accommodate, hold and store
articles. See file-cut flap pockets (52), zippered pocket
(56) and the pockets defined by the slits (54) of Figures 7
and 8; pockets (60, 62 and 64) of Figures 9 and 10; pockets
(66, 68)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007