Appeal No. 2000-0449
Application No. 08/636,614
therefore agree with appellant to the extent that, even if the
references were combined as proposed by the examiner, the
first compartment 11 of Stanley would be sealed to the outer
compartment 31 only at one end. We find no disclosure in
either reference which would teach or suggest to one of
ordinary skill that the first compartment should extend across
the length of the second compartment, as claimed. In fact,
Gossett seams to teach to the contrary, in that it discloses
that the bottom margin of inner compartment 2 is at the
midpoint of the outer compartment 1 (col. 5, lines 1 to 3),
that it is desirable to have the inner compartment rupture as
shown in Figures 5 and 6, i.e., at the seal 6 at its free end
within second compartment 1 (col. 5, lines 12 to 23), and that
seal 6 serves to focus the position of the rupture (col. 4,
lines 59 to 66).
The device defined in claim 1 therefore would not have
been obvious from the combination of Stanley and Gossett, and
rejection (3) will not be sustained as to claim 1, or as to
claims 2, 4, and 5 dependent thereon.
Rejections (4) and (5)
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007