Appeal No. 2002-1898
Application 09/567,392
is met by Thatcher. As indicated above, Thatcher’s backpack 10
is designed to be worn such that the bulk of its weight is
supported through hip belt 16 by the lumbar region of the
wearer’s back. Hence, the backpack contemplated by Thatcher
clearly would not locate its entire load over thoracic spinal
column of the user as called for by claim 6. Moreover, there is
nothing in the teachings of Thatcher which would support any
speculation that the entire load of the back pack 10 would be
located over the thoracic spinal column of the user through the
shoulder straps 30 and sternum strap 34 if the hip belt 16 were
inoperative, i.e., unbuckled.
Thus, Thatcher does not disclose each and every element of
the back pack recited in claim 6. Accordingly, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claim 6, and dependent
8, as being anticipated by Thatcher.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
Since McAllister does not cure the above noted shortcomings
of Thatcher relative to parent claim 6, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 7 as
being obvious over Thatcher in view of McAllister.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007