Ex Parte JACKSON - Page 6

          Appeal No. 2000-0004                                       Page 6           
          Application No. 08/872,004                                                  

                    Opposite sheath ends are secured together by                      
                    strap 3 and buckle 5.  The collar of McBride                      
                    is adapted to receive and store a drinking                        
                    fluid if one desired to fill the vessel 19                        
                    with such a fluid and then introduce it into                      
                    the sheath. [final rejection at pages 2 to                        
                    3]. (emphasis in original).                                       
               Appellant argues that McBride does not teach or suggest a              
          resealable closure for a fluid vessel containing drinking fluid             
          because the flap 13 of McBride is an element of the sheath and              
          not an element of the watertight vessel and thus can not be                 
          considered the closure required by claim 1.                                 
               We do not find this argument persuasive because enclosures             
          11 and 15 of the McBride collar form a tubular band with at least           
          one fluid compartment in which the fluid inside tube 19 is stored           
          and flap 13 is a port in the tubular band formed by enclosures 11           
          and 15.  As such, the structure of McBride anticipates the                  
          subject matter of claim 1.   Therefore, we will sustain the                 
          rejection as it is directed to claim 1.                                     
               We will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to               
          claim 4 as this claim stands or falls with claim 1. (See brief at           
          page 3).                                                                    
               We turn next to the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under                  
          35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over McBride.  We will                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007