Appeal No. 97-4042
Application 08/578,248
evidence which would support a conclusion of obviousness.
This being the case, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Considering the rejections of (1) claim 13 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mackey, (2) claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mackey in view of
Mazzotti, (3) claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mackey in view of Gregg, and (4) claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable Mackey, each of
these rejections is based on the examiner’s view that Mackey
teaches first and second pockets which are “of different size
and shape” as set forth in claim 13. We cannot agree. While
the pockets 15, 16 and 17 of Mackey are of different size,
they are of the same shape, rather than of a “different” shape
as claimed. For this reason, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the
rejections of claims 14, 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Considering now the rejection of claim 16 as being
unpatentable over Mackey in view of Anderson under 35 U.S.C.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007