Appeal No. 2001-2225
Application 09/265,647
limitation on the flexible bag itself with respect to any cover.
We further note that appellant has not included any argument
respecting holes 4 in the sidewalls of McAdams.
With respect to the rejection of claims 23-25 and 28
as anticipated by McAdams, we note that these claims are directed
to the combination of a parts washer and a flexible bag. McAdams
does not show a parts washer in combination with a flexible bag.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 7-11, we affirm the rejections of these claims based not
on the combined teachings of Lee and McAdams but on the teachings
of McAdams alone for claim 7 and McAdams and the examiner’s
official notice regarding written instructions for claims 8-11.
First, for claim 7, McAdams discloses that his bag can be dis-
posable. This represents a clear recognition in the art that a
kit such as disclosed by McAdams should include several replace-
ment flexible bags for consumer convenience when replacing the
disposable bags. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim 7
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lee and McAdams is
affirmed based on the teaching of McAdams alone.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007