Appeal No. 2006-1386
Application No. 10/206,567
need for a liner in another trash can or the reduced cost of providing a single liner rather than
multiple liners” (answer, page 5).
Poliquin does not disclose that the vent functions as a liner, and Poliquin’s figure 1,
which shows each vent extending down a corner of the trash can and ending above the trash
can’s bottom, indicates that the vent cannot function as a liner. Hence, there is no basis in
Poliquin for equating vents and liners. The examiner argues that “Peterson provides a liner or
sling which relieves the presence of vacuum lock between the trash bag and trash can at
prescribed, equally spaced locations” (answer, page 8). Thus, the examiner is arguing that
Peterson provides support for equating vents and liners. Peterson, however, does not disclose
that the sling relieves vacuum lock, and the examiner has provided no evidence or reasoning to
that effect.
The examiner, therefore, has not provided a proper basis for combining the disclosures of
Peterson and Poliquin. Consequently, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-10, 15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Peterson is
affirmed. The rejections of claims 1-10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written
description requirement, and claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Peterson in view of Poliquin,
are reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007