Appeal 2006-3406
Application 10/383,906
1 ANALYSIS
2 We begin with the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
3 (second paragraph) as being indefinite. From facts 1-5 we find that the
4 money belt is to be configured so that it is less than or equal to the width of
5 the belt it is to be used with. From this finding, we are not in agreement
6 with the Examiner's holding that the recitation of the money belt or pouch
7 being no wider than a waist worn belt is indefinite. Rather, we find the
8 recitation that the money belt or pouch is no wider than a waist worn belt, to
9 mean that the money belt or pouch is made to be no wider than whatever
10 width belt it is worn with. Thus, we find that an artisan would consider the
11 disputed claim language to be readily understandable from Appellant's
12 disclosure. Since the waist worn belt is not part of the claimed invention, we
13 hold that the metes and bounds can be readily ascertained.
14 Turning to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
15 being anticipated by Kennedy, we note at the outset that we need not address
16 the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 because we agree with Appellant,
17 for the reasons which follow, that Kennedy fails to anticipate claims 1-7.
18 From facts 6-12 we find that in each of the embodiments of Kennedy,
19 the belt is fixedly secured to the pouch. We find nothing in Kennedy to
20 teach that the waterproof pouch is adapted to be removably attached to the
21 inside of a waist worn belt, because Kennedy has no structure that could be
22 used to attach the pouch to the inside of a waist worn belt. In addition, from
23 the disclosure of Kennedy that the pouch is made to coordinate colors and
24 patterns to swim wear (col.1, ll. 42-46), we find that the pouch of Kennedy
25 is not made to be worn under or attached to a belt, but rather is made to be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013