Appeal 2006-3406
Application 10/383,906
1 worn over a swim suit. We do find that the pouch of Kennedy is capable of
2 being connected to a user under a waist worn belt, but not attached to a waist
3 worn belt. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred
4 in rejecting claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
5 Kennedy.
6 Turning to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) we
7 find from facts 13-19 that Repka meets the claimed invention with the
8 exception of the pouch being closed by a zipper. From the description in
9 Repka that money belts are known to use zippers as well as similar types of
10 closure elements (fact 15) and the disclosure in Smith of using a zipper to
11 provide access to the back of a pouch hung from a belt, we find that an
12 artisan would have been motivated to either replace the hook and loop
13 connector of Repka with a zipper, or to add a zipper to the pouch of Repka
14 as taught by Smith.
15 We are not persuaded by Appellant's assertion (Br. 10) that the Repka
16 invention is not a pouch, because money belt 10 forms a holder for paper
17 money 22 as shown in figures 3 and 4. Nor are we persuaded by Appellant's
18 assertion (id.) that Smith is not similar in purpose and design to the Repka
19 invention, because Smith 16 is a pouch (col. 2, line 34), and because the
20 purse or wallet is designed to be hung from a belt and have a zipper provide
21 the opening in the back of the purse or wallet.
22 Nor are we persuaded by Appellant's assertion (Br. 11) that there is no
23 suggestion in Smith that the purse should be hidden behind the belt, because
24 Smith is not relied upon for this feature. From all of the above, we are not
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013