Appeal No. 2006-1711
Application No. 10/805,935
Further, it is not apparent why the location of the terminating point of zipper 14c
being located just above the termination point of the zippers 14a, 14b would
preclude the terminating point of zipper 14c from resting against some portion of
the wearer’s body when worn. The proximity of the portion of the enclosure 16
above the shoulder straps to the wearer’s head, back or neck will depend on factors
such as the tautness of the shoulder straps, the posture of the wearer, the size and
weight of the wearer, and the volume and weight of the materials within the
backpack. Under the appropriate set of conditions, the terminating point of the
zipper 14c between and just above the termination point of the zippers 14a, 14b
appears reasonably capable of resting against a wearer’s body when worn.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 21 as being anticipated by
Williams.
We turn our attention now to the rejection of claims 1-24 as being
unpatentable over Williams. In making this rejection, the examiner takes the
position that
it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the
time of invention to change the length or orientation of
the releasable securing devices while remaining within
the scope and spirit of the Williams enclosure. As shown
by Figure 8 disclosed by Williams, the releasable
securing devices can have a length spanning from just a
portion of the back panel to a majority of the back panel
and it would be obvious to have the length of the
releasable securing device extend at least substantially
halfway along the back panel [final rejection, p. 3].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013