Appeal No. 1998-1431 Page 6
Application No. 08/665,162
appellants’ disclosure as a blueprint to reconstruct the
claimed invention from the isolated teachings of the prior
art. See, e.g., Grain Processing Corp. v. American
Maize-Products Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied
by the examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal. The
examiner is of the opinion that McBride discloses the claimed
limitations except for the end cover formed integral with the
sidewall and a support attached to the sidewall (examiner’s
answer at page 5). The examiner has cited Rosenbloom for
disclosing a bag having a sidewall on which a first
circumferential hoop 23 and a second circumferential
hoop/support 24 are attached. The second circumferential
hoop/support 24 is
made of metal or other stiff flexible material which retains
its circular shape when unrestrained (col. 3, lines 17-21).
The examiner concludes that:
It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art in view of
Rosenbloom ’468 to modify the device of
McBride so it includes a support attached
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007