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