Appeal No. 2000-0449
Application No. 08/636,614
(2) Claims 16 and 17, anticipated by Stanley, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
(3) Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5, unpatentable over Stanley in view of
Gossett, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(4) Claims 6 and 8, unpatentable over Stanley in view of
Gossett and Caillouette, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(5) Claims 7 and 9, unpatentable over Stanley in view of
Gossett, Caillouette and Angelillo, under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
Rejection (1)
Claim 1 recites in part (B)(v)(emphasis added):
the first compartment being fixedly encased by
the second compartment at a sealed edge where
the first and second compartments overlap and
extending across the length of the second
compartment.
The examiner takes the position that "[t]he specification does
not adequately disclose the first and second compartments
overlapping at a sealed edge" (final rejection (Paper No. 17),
page 2). Appellant argues that the claimed structure is shown
dependent thereon, since they incorporate all the limitations
of the parent claim. 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007