Appeal No. 2002-0357
Application 09/433,988
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 11 and 13) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 12) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The obviousness-type double patenting rejections
We shall summarily sustain the standing obviousness-type
double patenting rejections of claims 1 through 40 based on Speck
‘995 and Speck ‘529, respectively, as the appellant, stating an
intention to file a curative terminal disclaimer (see page 2 in
the main brief), has not contested the merits thereof.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
Mizuno, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a bag
which the appellant characterizes as follows:
[t]he Mizuno #MTB bag . . . is a baseball
equipment bag having an elongated bag forming a non-
rigid, flexible enclosure, a rear compartment for
holding bats, a means for accessing the rear
compartment at the upper end of the bag, a large front
compartment for holding gloves, shoes, clothing, etc.,
a means for accessing the front compartment, and a
smaller compartment on the inside of the bag having a
zipper closure. The Mizuno #MTB bag also has handles
and shoulder straps for carrying. While it is not
clear whether the Mizuno #MTB bag includes a fence clip
for hanging, Appellant acknowledges that there were
prior art equipment bags with fence clips prior to
Appellant’s invention [main brief, pages 10 and 11].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007