Appeal No. 1999-0945
Application 08/786,665
11 does not distinguish over Jarvis, and also conclude that
Jarvis does not teach or suggest a reusable envelope like that
defined in appellant’s claim 11 on appeal. Once evacuated,
the envelope in Jarvis is strictly a rigid structure, without
the degree of flexibility required in appellant’s claim 11 on
appeal. Moreover, it would appear to be entirely contrary to
the clear teachings in Jarvis to provide the envelopes therein
with a degree of flexibility (in their evacuated state) which
would be like that required in appellant’s claims before us on
appeal.
Since the teachings and suggestions found in Jarvis would
not have made the subject matter as a whole of claim 11 on
appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellant’s invention, we must refuse to sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 11, and of dependent claims 3, 4
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007