Appeal 2006-3406
Application 10/383,906
1 Appellant invented a money belt 10, which is a flat pouch 58, having
2 a zipper 22 on one side. (Specification, p. 1).
3 Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reads as follows:
4 1. An improved, secure money holder comprising:
5 a) a pouch, no wider than a waist worn belt, having an inner
6 layer and an outer layer; said outer layer adapted to removably
7 attach to the inside of said waist worn belt; said pouch defining
8 an interior; and
9 b) a zipper incorporated in said inner layer, whereby said
10 interior is only accessible through said zipper.
11
12 The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (second
13 paragraph) as being indefinite. The Examiner also rejected claims 1-7 under
14 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kennedy. In addition, the
15 Examiner rejected claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
16 unpatentable over Repka in view of Smith.
17
18 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
19 appeal is:
20 Smith US 2,317,820 Sep. 8, 1941
21 Repka US 4,139,133 Feb. 13, 1979
22 Kennedy US 6,435,392 B1 Aug. 20, 2002
23
24 With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
25 (second paragraph) Appellant contends (Br. 11) that the terms and phrases
26 used in the claims find clear support or antecedent basis in the description.
27 The Examiner contends (Answer 3) that the recitation that the claimed pouch
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013