Appeal No. 2004-0603 Page 7
Application No. 09/713,353
Ekman discloses securement of the pouch 18 to strips 30 by stitching,4 the straps 22,
24, which correspond to the claimed “carrying means”, are simply placed within loops
defined by the strips 30 and thus are not permanently secured thereto. See the last
paragraph of column 2 of Ekman. Accordingly, the pouch 18 cannot reasonably be
considered to be permanently attached to the straps 22, 24.
In light of the foregoing, the combined teachings of Fiedler, Miyako and Ekman
would not have suggested permanent attachment of a receiving means to one of the
shoulder belts of Fiedler’s device to arrive at the subject matter of claim 12. It thus
follows that we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 12, or claims 14, 15, 17 and 18
which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Fiedler in view of Miyako and
Ekman. Inasmuch as Fowles, relied upon by the examiner for its teaching of a
protection foil (electromagnetic shield 54) in a pouch for a communication device
(pager), likewise fails to teach that which is lacking in the combination of Fiedler,
Miyako and Ekman, we also cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claim 16 as
being unpatentable over Fiedler in view of Miyako, Ekman and Fowles.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 12 and 14-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims 19-22 and reversed as to claims 12 and 14-18.
4 The examiner’s characterization of such an attachment as permanent is certainly reasonable,
especially in light of appellant’s disclosure on page 7, in lines 4 and 5, of the present specification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007