Appeal 2006-3406
Application 10/383,906
1 With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) the
2 issue is whether Kennedy anticipates the language of these claims, and if so,
3 whether Appellant has successfully sworn behind the filing date of the
4 Kennedy reference. With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under
5 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Repka in view of Smith, the
6 issue is whether the combined teachings and suggestions of Repka and
7 Smith would have suggested to an artisan the language of claims 1-7. The
8 issue turns on whether Repka describes a pouch and whether Smith would
9 have suggested to an artisan replacing the hook and pile fasteners 24c, 24d
10 with a zipper, or adding a zipper to the structure of Repka.
11
12 FINDINGS OF FACT
13 Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we make the following
14 findings of fact:
15 1. Appellant invented a money belt. (Specification 1).
16 2. The invention is a flat pouch with a zipper on one side that
17 removably attaches to the inside of any belt, typically at the rear.
18 (Specification 2).
19 3. The inner layer of the pouch is made out of a sheet of material that
20 is no wider than the belt the pouch will eventually attach to. (id.).
21 4. The outer layer of the pouch is attached to the inside of the belt.
22 Preferably this is accomplished with adhesive backed hook and
23 loop fastener. (Specification 3). The layers of the pouch are no
24 wider than the width of a standard belt. (Specification 4).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013