Appeal No. 2006-1711
Application No. 10/805,935
the panels are integral with or connected to any other portion of the backpack, such
as the shoulder straps, for example.
In light of the above, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 12
and 22 as being anticipated by Williams. The appellant has not argued separately
the patentability of claims 2, 4-8, 13, 15-18, 23 and 24 apart from claims 1, 12 and
22, thereby permitting them to stand or fall with independent claims 1, 12 and 22
(see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In
re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)). The rejection of
dependent claims 2, 4-8, 13, 15-18, 23 and 24 as being anticipated by Williams is
thus also sustained.
With particular regard to claims 9 and 19, the appellant argues that the
zippers of Williams’ enclosure 16 are oriented longitudinally, not substantially
laterally, as called for in claims 9 and 19, with the backpack held substantially
upright (brief, p. 7). We do not agree. As seen in Fig. 4, the zipper 14c extends
longitudinally (that is, vertically) along the back panel 28 but is disposed laterally
(that is, “of, at, from, or toward the side; sideways” (Webster's New World
Dictionary, Second College Edition (Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1984)) along the top
panel 32. The rejection of claims 9 and 19 as being anticipated by Williams is
sustained.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, which recite that the releasable securing
device or zipper chain extends across at least a portion of the side panel, we note
that Williams’ zipper 14c extends across the top panel 32, which, together with the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013