Ex parte GRABHORN - Page 18




                 Appeal No. 1999-2446                                                                                    Page 18                        
                 Application No. 08/705,592                                                                                                             


                 rejection of appealed claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                                                                           
                 unpatentable over Scott.                                                                                                               


                 Claims 11 and 14                                                                                                                       
                          The appellant has grouped claims 6, 11 and 14 as standing                                                                     
                 or falling together.   Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR 6                                                                                                  
                 1.192(c)(7), claims 11 and 14 fall with claim 6.  Thus, it                                                                             
                 follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 11                                                                          
                 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Scott                                                                          
                 is also affirmed.                                                                                                                      


                 Claim 7                                                                                                                                
                          In our view, the limitations of claim 7 are readable on                                                                       
                 Scott.  In that regard, the wire mesh wall of Scott is                                                                                 
                 inherently flexible, and therefore the wood fragments therein                                                                          
                 would inherently conform to some degree to the surface on                                                                              
                 which Scott's mat sits.  While Scott's mat may not conform to                                                                          
                 the surface on which it sits to the same extent as the                                                                                 
                 appellant's disclosed bag, it is axiomatic that, in                                                                                    


                          6See page 5 of the appellant's brief.                                                                                         







Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007