Appeal No. 2005-0296
Application No. 09/802,097
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 10 and 18 through
21 as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of O’Neill and
further in view of Clute
The appellant does not dispute the examiner’s application of
Clute for its disclosure of a cover having a zipper as recited in
claim 10 or a fastener as recited in claim 18.2 Instead, the
appellant contends that the rejection is unsound because the
combined teachings of Matthews, O’Neill and Clute would not have
suggested a kit meeting the “permitting access” limitations in
claim 9, from which claim 10 depends, or the corresponding
“permitting access” limitations in independent claim 18, from
which claims 19 through 21 depend. For the reasons discussed
above, such argument is not persuasive.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 10 and 18 through 21 as being
unpatentable over Matthews in view of O’Neill and further in view
of Clute.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 3, 5
through 12 and 15 through 22 is affirmed.
2 The examiner’s application of Clute for this reason is somewhat
superfluous given O’Neill’s disclosure of a zippered cover.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007