Appeal No. 97-3402
Application No. 08/513,705
considering that the circumference of the inner liner is less
than the outer bag, and thus the conditions of the appellant’s
claims are met. We do not agree with this reasoning.
The inner bag disclosed by Futerman has no bottom (column
2, lines 49 and 50), and Futerman teaches making the sides of
the inner bag longer than those of the outer bag so that they
can fold inward at the bottom corners of the outer bag to
“ensure that the base seams [of the outer bag] are covered
without any need to stitch the liner to the base of the bag”
(column 3, lines 1-5). The examiner has proposed to modify
the Futerman bag by adding a bottom (Paper No. 4) in order to
meet another condition of the claims. Even considering,
arguendo, that such would have been obvious, it is our view
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason
to maintain the extra length of the sides, for the presence of
a bottom would have alleviated the problem solved by that
extra length. The inner bag of the modified Futerman
container therefore would have had a circumference less than
that of the outer bag and a length no greater than that of the
outer bag, with the result being that its size would not be
larger than that of the outer bag.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007