Appeal No. 2006-1386
Application No. 10/206,567
The appellant argues that the term “removal” in the preambles of the appellant’s claims
must be given weight and that, therefore, the claims require that the ends of the liner are not
connected when the trash bag is removed (reply brief, pages 6-9). The preambles of the
appellant’s claims require a system that is capable of trash bag removal. Peterson discloses such
a system (col. 2, lines 15-19). The appellant’s preamble term “removal” pertains to the claimed
system, not to the appellant’s disclosed method of operating it.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).1
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Poliquin discloses a trash can vent system that is securable to a trash can and includes a
vent channel (24) along the interior sidewall of the trash can to prevent the trash can liner from
forming a vacuum seal with the interior trash can sidewalls (col. 1, lines 43-47).
The examiner argues that Peterson discloses the invention in claim 16 except that
Peterson’s liners are connected to each other (col. 2, line 7) (answer, page 5). Regarding the
combination of Peterson and Poliquin, the examiner argues: “Poliquin teaches trash can vents or
liners that are not connected to each other at any time. It would have been obvious to separate at
least two of the liners in order to use the vacuum preventing liners as needed as motivated by the
1 The appellant does not separately address independent claim 15. That claim, therefore, falls with the
other rejected claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007