Appeal 2006-3406
Application 10/383,906
1 is no wider than a waist worn belt is indefinite because the dimensions or
2 range of the pouch encompassed by this limitation cannot be determined.
3 The Examiner adds that the specification fails to set forth the dimensions or
4 range that the width of the waist worn belt would accomplish.
5 With regard to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
6 Appellants have filed a Declaration of Prior Invention under 37 C.F.R.
7 § 1.131 (filed November 29. 2004) in an attempt to swear behind the filing
8 date of the Kennedy reference. In addition, Appellants contend (Br. 10) that
9 Kennedy describes two pouches, one within the other, with the outer pouch
10 attached to the belt and not to the inside of a belt. Appellant additionally
11 contends that the Kennedy invention is much wider than a belt. The
12 Examiner contends (Answer 3) that Kennedy teaches a pouch 54 with inner
13 and outer layers (Fig. 8), a zipper, and hook and loop fasteners 58.
14 With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
15 being unpatentable over Repka in view of Smith Appellant contends (Br. 10)
16 that Repka is not a pouch and that Smith is not similar in purpose and design
17 to the Repka invention. The Examiner contends (Answer 4) that it would
18 have been obvious to have replaced the hook and loop fastener of Repka
19 with a zipper as taught by Smith.
20 We affirm.
21 ISSUES
22 With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
23 (second paragraph) the issue is whether the metes and bounds of these
24 claims would have been clear to an artisan in light of Appellant's disclosure.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013