Appeal No. 97-0771
Application No. 08/405,385
at least to some extent, along the sides of the front and rear
primary panel, it is our view, based on the above
interpretation, that this circumstance does not justify a
finding that the closure fasteners 34, 35 of Finlay satisfy
the closure device limitation of claim 15. The examiner’s
determination to the contrary is based on an unreasonable
interpretation of the claim language, in our view. In that
Boll does not overcome this deficiency of Finlay, we conclude,
as did appellant, that even if Finlay were modified in the
manner proposed by the examiner the subject matter of claim 15
would not result. This constitutes a second reason
necessitating reversal of the examiner’s rejection of claims
15-20.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing § 103 rejection of claims 15-20 as being unpatentable
over Finlay in view of Boll. We have also reviewed the
Guithues reference additionally relied upon by the examiner in
the rejection of dependent claim 21 but find nothing therein
that makes up for the deficiencies of Finlay and Boll
discussed above. Accordingly, we also will not sustain the
standing § 103 rejection of claim 21.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007