Appeal No. 2001-2656 Page 9
Application No. 09/208,514
manner proposed by the examiner. To replace any portion of the Cunningham pack
with expandable material would appear to be undesirable because it would allow
portions of the pack to sag. Moreover, to install an expandable material around the
access (the zipper) on the outer surface of the compartment formed by partitions 26
and 27, which Cunningham has explained is of particular importance in his invention
(column 2, line 63 et seq.) would, from our perspective, clearly allow the pack to bend,
which would compromise the objectives of the invention (column 1, line 31). This
would, in our view, operate as a disincentive to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Cunningham in the manner proposed by the examiner, that is, would negate suggestion
to combine.
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined teachings of Cunningham and
Platts fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter recited in independent claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or,
it follows, of dependent claims 2-10.
Claim 20 stands rejected as being unpatentable over Cunningham and Platts,
taken further in view of Pedersen. Claim 20 includes all of the limitations recited in
claim 1, plus the requirement that there be a compartment for storing headgear and
means for removably attaching it to a portion of the carrying bag. It is to the latter
limitation that Pedersen is directed. However, be that as it may, Pedersen does not
alleviate the problem we pointed out above with regard to combining the teachings of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007