Appeal No. 2006-1255
Application No. 10/655,076
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent, how the
term “fluid” in the appellant’s claims reasonably can be
construed, in view of the appellant’s specification, as including
garments and toys.
We therefore find that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of the
appellant’s claimed invention over Kellogg ‘188 or Kellogg ‘924.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over those references.
Rejection of claims 1-8 and 13-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Van Romer ‘233
in view of Kellogg ‘188 and Kellogg ‘924
Van Romer ‘233 discloses a single-compartment, portable,
foldable containment device for hazardous chemicals such as
petrochemicals and fuels (col. 1, lines 5-14).
The examiner argues (answer, page 6):
Both Kellogg references teach the flexible interior
partition walls. It would have been obvious to add
interior walls to segment the containment area and
segregate the fluid being contained to separate
different fluids or provide separation to more easily
handle a smaller volume of fluid.... It would have
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007