Appeal No. 2006-1386
Application No. 10/206,567
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Peterson discloses a sling for lifting a filled trash bag out of a trash container without the
bag being ruptured by the weight of the trash therein (abstract). The sling comprises a pair of
straps (12) that extend under the bottom of the trash bag, past a disc or plate at which they are
joined together, and up the trash container’s sides to the top of the trash container where they are
hooked (col. 2, lines 1-12; figure 2). When the filled trash bag is to be lifted from the trash
container the ends of the straps are hooked to each other at the top of the trash bag (col. 2, lines
15-19; figure 1).
The appellant argues that Peterson’s pairs of straps must be connected at the top of the
trash bag for the trash bag to be removed from the trash container and that, therefore, Peterson’s
sling has a different structure and operation than the appellant’s system (brief, pages 11-13; reply
brief, pages 9-10). The appellant is claiming a trash bag removal system, not a method for
operating it. Thus, the relevant issue is whether Peterson’s system is capable of meeting the
functional language in the appellant’s claims. As indicated by the claim language set forth by
the appellant with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, discussed
above, the appellant’s claims require that the ends of Peterson’s straps must be capable of being
not connected when a trash can liner is positioned within a trash container. Peterson’s straps
meet that requirement as shown in Peterson’s figure 2.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007