Appeal No. 2003-0452 Page 7
Application No. 09/846,714
Since the claimed subject matter is not met by Schwarzkopf for the reasons set
forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 50 to 53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Schwarzkopf is reversed.
Anticipation rejection based on Bell
In the rejection of claims 50 to 53 as being anticipated by Bell, the examiner
determined (final rejection, p. 3) that the claimed subject matter was readable on the
pouch shown in Figure 4 of Bell. The appellant argues (brief, pp. 13-14) that claims 50
to 53 are not anticipated by Figure 4 of Bell since Bell does not teach the concave
surface of the first lateral edge is substantially opposite the convex surface of the
second lateral edge.
After considering the positions of the examiner and the appellant, we find
ourselves in agreement with the appellant's position and therefore reach the conclusion
that claims 50 to 53 are not anticipated by Bell. In that regard, it is our opinion that one
skilled in the art would not have viewed the inwardly directed projections 206 on first
seal 192 which are positioned opposite the inwardly directed projections 206 on second
seal 194 to be substantially opposite the outwardly directed recesses 208 on second
seal 194. Likewise, one skilled in the art would not have viewed the outwardly directed
recesses 208 on first seal 192 which are positioned opposite the outwardly directed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007