Appeal No. 2006-1711
Application No. 10/805,935
a releasable securing device for accessing the main
compartment, the releasable securing device extending
along at least two of the plural panels.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
May 3,530,919 Sep. 29, 1970
Williams 5,154,332 Oct. 13, 1992
The appellant seeks review of the examiner’s rejections of claims 1-9, 11-19
and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Williams, claims 1-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Williams, and claims 10 and
20 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of May.
Rather than reiterate in their entirety the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
final rejection (mailed May 20, 2005) and examiner's answer (mailed December
21, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the appellant's brief (filed December 6, 2005) and reply brief (filed January 24,
2006) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the following determinations.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013