Appeal No. 2005-0485
Application No. 09/303,632
Hence, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 22 and 23 as being unpatentable over
Yanagisawa in view of Adair, IBM and either Okamura or Young.
VI. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21, 24 through 26
and 28 through 30 as being unpatentable over Gaible in view of
IBM
For the reasons discussed above, Gaible meets all of the
limitations in independent claim 21 except for the one requiring
a “package” of individual disposable transparent covers. The
appellants do not specifically dispute the examiner’s conclusion
that it would have been obvious in view of IBM to provide a
plurality of the Gaible bags in a package to facilitate
discarding and replacing them when soiled or damaged.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 21 as being unpatentable over Gaible
in view of IBM.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 24 through 26 and 28 through 30 as
being unpatentable over Gaible in view of IBM since the
appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable
specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or fall with
independent claim 21 (see In re Nielson, supra).
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007