Appeal No. 2006-1769
Application No. 09/784,292
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the appellants’ specification, claims 1, 5, 21, 34, and 38,
the applied prior art, and the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations that follow. It is our view that, after
consideration of the record before us, the claimed invention would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
based on the evidence relied upon by the examiner. Further, because
the appellants fail to present arguments rebutting the outstanding
obviousness-type double patenting rejection in their briefs, we affirm
this rejection.
I. Obviousness Rejection
A. Independent Claims 1, 21, and 34
In the rejection of independent claims 1, 21, and 34, the
examiner has determined that Kuen ‘162 discloses a chassis (22), side
panels (40), fastening components (56), mating fastening components
(42, 44), and seams formed by the fasteners that run from the waist
opening to the leg openings.
The examiner has determined that the device of Kuen ‘162
includes all of the claimed structure recited in claims 1, 21, and 34
except for the side panels each having a waist edge nonparallel with
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007