Appeal No. 2000-0449
Application No. 08/636,614
Appellant argues at page 8 of the brief that:
End seams do not anticipate extension tabs that
are explicitly defined as means to attach the
pack to another surface. There is a structural
difference between end seams and extension tabs
because end seams do not possess attaching means
whereas extension tabs inherently possess such
attaching means.
This argument is not persuasive because, first, claim 16 does
not recite the tabs as "means to attach the pack to another
surface," and even if it did claim the tabs in terms of a
means-plus-function under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph,
the corresponding structure described in appellant’s
specification is simply the plain tabs 108 shown in Figure 8,
which do not appear to differ structurally from Stanley’s tabs
37. Appellant’s argument that "extension tabs inherently
possess such attaching means" seems to be contrary to the
structure of tabs 108 as disclosed in the application.
We will therefore sustain the rejection of claim 16, and
of dependent claim 17 grouped therewith (brief, page 4).
Rejection (3)
With regard to claim 1, the examiner states the basis of
the rejection on page 4 of the final rejection as follows:
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007