Appeal No. 1996-3947 Page 7
Application No. 08/151,741
shield of Whitney would also need to be modified to include a
latch coupled to the base and the shield (i.e., second cover) for
releasably coupling the second longitudinal edge of the shield
(i.e., second cover) to a longitudinal edge of the base [see
instant claim 14].
While the applied prior art appears to disclose the separate
pieces of the independent claims such as covers, dual channels,
various latches, hinges, etc., on balance, when viewing the
applied prior art as a whole, it is our view that the artisan
would have lacked any incentive, absent appellants’ own
disclosure, to combine the various teachings of these references
in such a manner as to arrive at the instant claimed subject
matter.
While we do not reach the dependent claims because we
conclude that the subject matter of the independent claims is
not made obvious by the combination of the applied references,
we also
note that the specific limitations required by claims 8, 9, 22
and 23, i.e., the requirement of the second leg to provide both
latching surfaces and the requirement of a frangible seam and
removable divider permitting removal of both the second cover
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007