Appeal No. 2004-1520 Page 3
Application No. 09/957,058
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon the following prior
art references:
Howard 2,582,435 Jan. 15, 1952
Berfield et al. (Berfield) 4,799,699 Jan. 24, 1989
Yang 5,924,709 July 20, 1999
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yang in view of Berfield. Howard is added to reject claims 5-6.
We affirm. In so doing, we adopt the well articulated findings of fact and
conclusions of law advanced by the Examiner in the Answer. We add the following for
emphasis.
OPINION
In conformance with the grouping of the claims by Appellant, we consider the
issues as they apply to claims 1, 5, and 6. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003). With regard to
these claims, Appellant has not convinced us of any reversible error on the part of the
Examiner.
Because many of the issues are the same for both rejections, we will start with a
general discussion applicable to both rejections. First, we note that the quality of the
Examiner’s findings of fact are of the highest variety (Answer, pp. 4-5 and 7). They are
soundly supported by the Examiner’s citations to the references (Id.). We agree with the
Examiner that Yang describes a golf bag having all the required structure of the golf bag
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007