Appeal No. 2004-0603 Page 6
Application No. 09/713,353
Thus, we shall sustain the rejection of claim 19, as well as dependent claims 20 and 21
which appellant has grouped with claim 19 (brief, page 5), as being unpatentable over
Fiedler in view of Miyako and Ekman.3 We shall also sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 22 as being unpatentable over Fiedler in view of Miyako, Ekman and Gormley
since the appellant has not challenged such with any reasonable specificity (See In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)) and in fact has
indicated that claim 22 stands or falls with claim 19 (brief, page 5).
We turn our attention next to independent claim 12, which reads as follows:
12. A case for musical instruments, comprising a shell;
means for carrying the case and attached to the shell; and
means permanently attached to the carrying means for
receiving a communication device,
[w]herein the carrying means comprises two shoulder
belts, and wherein the receiving means is permanently
attached to one of the shoulder belts on an outer side of the
one of the shoulder belts.
None of the references, Fiedler, Miyako and Ekman, relied upon by the examiner
in rejecting claim 12 teaches or suggests a permanent attachment of a receiving means
to a shoulder belt. We find no such teaching, in particular, in Ekman, the reference
alluded to by the examiner on page 4 of the answer as teaching a permanent
attachment of a means for receiving an audio device to a carrying means. While
3 See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007