MacDonald, Nichole et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 6, 2019

14190067 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/190,067 02/25/2014 Nichole MacDonald SAH.201US 5449
74184 7590 12/06/2019
Law Ofc. of TW Fitzwilliam
5666 La Jolla Blvd
#221
La Jolla, CA 92037
EXAMINER
MAI, TRI M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3733
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2019 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte NICHOLE MACDONALD and VANESSA LILLIGREN
__________________

Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3–5, 9, 10, 14, and 15. Claims 2, 6–8,
and 11–13 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 3, 5 (Claims App.).2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Nichole MacDonald as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 3.
2 Citations to the Claims Appendix are to the Appeal Brief filed on Dec. 25,
2017. All other citations to the Appeal Brief are to the Appeal Brief filed on
Nov. 6, 2011.
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 14 are independent, with claim 1 reproduced below
with disputed limitations highlighted in italics.
1. A satchel configured to be worn over a user’s shoulder
comprising:
a bag portion for holding items as desired by the
user; and
a shoulder strap having a sufficient length to be
worn over an adult user’s shoulder;
wherein, the bag portion further comprising:
a front corresponding to an X-Y plane
facing a negative Z axis;
a back also corresponding to the X-Y plane
however facing a positive Z-axis;
a forward portion corresponding to a
positive X axis appearing forward to the user’s hip when in use;
and
a rear portion corresponding to a negative X
axis and appearing rearward to the user’s hip when in use;
a first pocket configured to the rear portion;
a second and a third pocket each configured
to the forward portion wherein a first pair of zippers move
toward one another securing the first pocket and wherein a
second pair of zippers secures both of the second and third
pockets further the second pair of zippers moving toward one
another, wherein further the first, second and third pockets
provide weight distribution of contents therein, wherein the bag
portion further comprises a fourth pocket configured over the
third pocket and a fifth pocket configured over the first pocket,
the fourth pocket and fifth pocket each being devoid of closure
mechanisms, the fourth and fifth pockets together arranged on
forward and rear portions respectively further providing weight
distribution of contents therein.

Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Menzel (US 2010/0133310 A1, pub. June 3, 2010) and
Vazquez (US D468,904 S, iss. Jan. 21, 2003) or Mallet (US 2014/0029875
A1, pub. Jan. 30, 2014).
Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Menzel and Jacobson (US 3,316,951, iss. May 2, 1967).
Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Menzel, Vazquez or Mallet, further in view of Nathan (US
7,237,703 B1, iss. July 3, 2007) or Sachs (US 1,828,342, iss. Oct. 20, 1931).
Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Menzel and Jacobson further in view of Nathan or Sachs.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Menzel, Vazquez or Mallet, and Bourque (US 2010/0306902 A1, pub. Dec.
9, 2010).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Menzel, Jacobson, and Bourque.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Menzel, Vazquez or Mallet, Nathan or Sachs, and Bourque.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Menzel, Jacobson, Nathan or Sachs, and Bourque.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Menzel, Vazquez or Mallet, and Schlipper (US 8,267,290 B2, iss. Sept. 18,
2012).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Menzel, Jacobson, and Schlipper.
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Menzel, Vazquez or Mallet, Nathan or Sachs, and Schlipper.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Menzel, Jacobson, Nathan or Sachs, and Schlipper.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15
Rejected over Menzel and Vazquez or Mallet
Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 8–9. We
select claim 1 as representative of the group and address Appellant’s
arguments for claims 10 and 14 separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Menzel teaches a satchel
configured to be worn over a user’s shoulder comprising first, second, and
third pockets wherein a pocket section can be made up of plural integrated
pockets secured with a single mechanical closure as claimed for the second
and third pockets, and pockets can be added to the outside of one side of a
pocket section like the claimed fourth and fifth pockets. See Final Act. 3–4
(citing Menzel ¶¶ 7, 31, claim 19, claim 20, Fig. 4). The Examiner finds that
Menzel does not teach a first pair of zippers to secure the first pocket or a
second pair of zippers to secure both the second and third pockets. Id. at 4.
The Examiner cites Vazquez and Mallett to teach the use of a pair of
zippers at the top of a single zipper track and reasons that it would have been
obvious to a skilled artisan to provide a pair of zippers for a single pocket or
for a pocket section comprising two adjacent pockets in Menzel for reasons
taught by Vazquez or Mallet. See id. The Examiner determines that using
two zipper tabs for Menzel’s pocket closure 18 “would have been obvious
since these are equivalents in this art of bags/containers.” Ans. 10.
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

5
First and Second Pockets Secured by Pair of Zippers
Appellant argues that no reference teaches a second and third pocket
secured by a second pair of zippers moving toward one another. Appeal Br.
8. Appellant argues that Menzel does not teach a plurality of pockets that
can form a pocket section that can have a single closure, and the Examiner’s
statement to that effect is not disclosed in Menzel leaving it unclear what is
meant by a “pocket section,” which is not illustrated in Menzel’s drawings.
Id. at 8–9. Appellant also argues that Vazquez and Mallet teach two zippers
moving toward one another, but they secure only a single pocket rather than
two pockets as claimed. Id. at 9; Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant further argues
that Menzel teaches that all zippers 18 move in the same direction to secure
each pocket rather than toward one another as claimed. Reply Br. 4–5.
The Examiner has the better position. Menzel teaches that the sling
carrier is formed from two distinct front and rear pieces. Menzel ¶ 17. The
separate front and rear pieces of material can be connected to form a single
large pocket or multiple smaller pockets integrated into the sling shape. Id.
In both cases, the pockets are accessed via a closure system such as a zipper
to allow quick and easy removal of personal gear from each pocket. Id.
Menzel teaches first and second pocket defining pieces that define a
pocket section, and “the mechanical closure can be at the top of the pocket
section.” Id. ¶ 7 (emphasis added). The mechanical closure at the top of the
pocket section can be a zipper, and the entire pocket section can have plural
integrated pockets. Id. Alternatively, each of multiple pockets of a pocket
section can have a separate mechanical closure such as a zipper. Id. Menzel
thus teaches that the multiple pockets of a pocket section may be closed by a
single closure (zipper), or each pocket may have its own closure. See id.
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

6
Menzel claims a pocket section closed by a single mechanical closure
such as a zipper and that includes plural pockets. Claim 1 of Menzel recites
first and second “pocket defining pieces” attached “by a mechanical closure
that can be repeatedly engaged and unengaged” to close a pocket defined by
these two pieces when engaged and open the pocket when the mechanical
closure is unengaged. Id. claim 1. Dependent claim 19 recites that these
first and second pocket defining pieces also define a pocket section, and “the
mechanical closure is at the top of the pocket section.” Dependent claim 20
further recites that “an entirety of the pocket section is made up of a plurality
of integrated pockets.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the single mechanical
closure is claimed to secure a single pocket section having plural pockets.
The Examiner thus correctly finds that Menzel teaches and claims a
pocket section with multiple pockets closed by a single mechanical closure.
Final Act. 3 (citing Menzel claims 19 and 20); Ans. 10–11; see also Menzel
¶¶ 7, 17 (teaching a pocket section can have plural integrated pockets, and a
zipper can close each pocket or the entire pocket section and its multiple
pockets); see In re Berg, 320 F.3d 1310, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (As persons
of scientific competence in the fields in which they work, examiners and
administrative patent judges are responsible for making findings, informed
by their scientific knowledge, as to the meaning of prior art references to
persons of ordinary skill in the art and the motivation those references would
provide to such persons. Absent legal error or contrary factual evidence,
those findings can establish a prima facie case of obviousness.”).
Appellant’s argument that Menzel does not teach a pocket section
with plural pockets and a single closure does not address these findings and
therefore does not apprise us of Examiner error. See Appeal Br. 8–9.
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

7
Instead, Appellant argues that Menzel’s teaching of a pocket section
divided into multiple pockets with each pocket section having a separate
mechanical closure “does not meet a limitation where a pair of zippers are
moving toward one another securing two pockets.” Reply Br. 4–5. This
argument also is not persuasive because it does not address the Examiner’s
findings that Menzel teaches a pocket section with multiple pockets secured
by a single closure such as a zipper, and Vazquez and Mallet each teach
zipper closures operated by a pair of zippers as claimed. Final Act. 3–4.
The teachings of Vazquez and Mallet provide rational underpinnings
to support the proposed modification of Menzel to include pairs of zippers to
close the pockets. Vazquez teaches a pair of zippers along a top of a pocket
of a satchel. Mallet locks zipper tabs 36A, 36B via locking loops 38A, 38B
to secure a pocket once the zipper pull tabs 36 are joined. Mallet ¶ 19.
Moreover, in response to Appellant’s argument that Menzel teaches
zippers moving in the same direction to secure a pocket rather than toward
one another to secure two pockets as claimed (Reply Br. 7–8), we note the
following. Claim 1 requires “a second pair of zippers secures both of the
second and third pockets[,] further the second pair of zippers moving toward
one another.” Appeal Br. 2 (Claims App.). Claim 1 does not require a pair
of zippers to secure second and third pockets by moving toward one another.
Instead, claim 1 requires a pair of zippers that secures two pockets, and the
zippers also move toward one another. Menzel teaches second and third
pockets 16, 16 each closed by a zipper, and the zippers 18, 18 of the two
adjacent pockets 16, 16 move toward one another when one zipper closes a
pocket as the other opens the other pocket. Claim 1 arguably reads on this
feature under a broadest reasonable interpretation. See Menzel ¶ 26, Fig. 4.
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

8
First, Second, and Third Pockets Provide Weight Distribution
We also agree with the Examiner that Menzel teaches “first, second,
and third pockets provide weight distribution of contents therein” as recited
in claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Menzel teaches pockets
that may vary in number and size and may be arranged symmetrically along
the pocket section to provide the claimed weight distribution. Ans. 11.
Appellant’s Specification discloses the symmetry of the pockets of the
satchel provides weight distribution of contents. Spec. ¶ 22 (“The symmetry
provided also allows a wearer 99 to evenly distribute weight to the shoulder
strap 12.”). The Specification also describes “ergonomically providing a
plurality [of] symmetrical pockets about the axis;” . . . “distributing weight
evenly to the wearer in relations to a front and rear of the wearer’s 99 torso;
and distributing weight evenly by extending a strap portion across the
wearer’s body; and providing a pair of symmetrical zipper 31, 32, 33, 34
pockets to an inside edge of the satchel.” Id. ¶ 28 (emphasis added).
Claim 1 does not recite a symmetrical pocket arrangement. Claim 1
recites an asymmetrical satchel with a first pocket 41 on a rear portion and
second and third pockets 42, 43 on a forward portion as shown in Figure 4.
Id. ¶ 24. The Specification describes how “first pocket 41 could be easily
converted to two pockets identical to that on the opposite side 42, 43, and
therefore the bag 10 would be completely symmetrical (with eight pockets)
and therefore able to easily arrange contents to distribute weight” (id.), but
claim 1 does not recite this symmetrical arrangement.
The Examiner interprets the weight distribution feature as not adding
any structure that defines over Menzel’s symmetrical embodiment (Figure 4)
and it depends on what is stored in the pockets. Ans. 11–12; Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

9
“During examination, ‘claims [in an application] are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . .
claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting
In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); see In re Suitco Surface,
Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (same). “Giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the public interest by reducing the
possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is
justified.’” Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech., 367 F.3d at 1364 (quoting In re
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)); see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 322 (Fed. Cir.1989) (“An essential purpose of patent examination is to
fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in
this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible,
during the administrative process.”). “Construing claims broadly during
prosecution is not unfair to the applicant . . ., because the applicant has the
opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.”
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech., 367 F.3d at 1364; see Yamamoto, 740 F.2d at 1571–
72 (“Applicants’ interests are not impaired since they are not foreclosed
from obtaining appropriate coverage for their invention with express claim
language.”). “[T]he patent examiner and the applicant work together to
determine the scope of the claimed invention.” PPC Broadband Inc. v.
Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734, (Fed. Cir. 2016); see In
re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The patent examiner
and the applicant, in the give and take of rejection and response, work
toward defining the metes and bounds of the invention . . . .”)).
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

10
If Appellant wishes to impart particular structure or function to this
feature, e.g., that the first pocket provides a storage volume that is equal to
and symmetrical with the second and third pockets, it must be recited in the
claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, it is
well-settled that “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only
limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those
sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]his court counsels the PTO to avoid the
temptation to limit broad claim terms solely on the basis of specification
passages.”); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (absent lexicographic definition or disclaimer, the
claims are not limited to embodiments disclosed in the specification even if
the specification describes only a single embodiment).
Fourth and Fifth Outer Pockets Devoid of Closure Mechanism
Finally, Appellant argues that claims 1, 10, and 14 recite fourth and
fifth outer pockets that are placed outside of other pockets and are devoid of
closure mechanisms. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that the
outer pockets taught in Menzel are described as having openings and “[e]ach
of the openings would have an adjustable closure system[].” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant argues that a teaching of openings that “would have” a closure
means the closures are not optional. Reply Br. 3; see Ans. 12. We agree.
Menzel adds a tube or external pocket to the outside of the sling body
to carry items that do not fit into integrated pockets, but the openings “would
have an adjustable closure system[].” Menzel ¶ 31 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

11
Indeed, Menzel not only teaches that each opening of an outer pocket
“would have an adjustable closure system[],” but Menzel also teaches that
the closure system can include a drawcord, hook-and-loop fastener, magnets,
a button, or a flap. Id. If drawcords are used, cord locks may be used to
tighten the drawcords to any desired degree of closure. Id. A skilled artisan
would understand Menzel to teach outer pockets may be used on the satchel,
but the openings “would have” an adjustable closure system. Thus, Menzel
teaches to use a closure on each outer pocket of the satchel.  
The Examiner’s determination “it is obvious for someone to eliminate
the closure when its function is not desired” (Ans. 12) does not explain why
a closure is undesirable in Menzel. Such a conclusory determination lacks a
rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”); In re
Biedermann, 733 F.3d 329, 336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The articulated reasoning
and factual underpinnings of an examiner’s rejection are, thus, essential
elements of any stated ground of rejection.”).
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 14,
which recite fourth and fifth outer pockets “devoid of closure mechanisms”
(claim 1) or “not configured with closing mechanisms” (claim 14) and their
respective dependent claims 5 and 15. However, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 9, which recites only “a fourth pocket having an opening”
and “a fifth pocket having an opening,” but we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 10, which depends from claim 9 and recites “the fourth and fifth
pockets are devoid of closure mechanisms.”
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

12
Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15
Rejected over Menzel and Jacobson
The Examiner also rejects claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15 based on the
same teachings of Menzel as combined with and modified by the teachings
of Jacobson to provide two pairs of zippers 46, 44 and 64, 66 on a carrying
bag. Final Act. 5. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to
a skilled artisan to include this closure to secure the pockets of Menzel as
Jacobson teaches. Id.
Appellant relies on the same arguments as for the previous rejection,
namely, the prior art lacks two pockets closed by a pair of zippers, weight
distribution, and outer pockets without closure mechanisms. Appeal Br. 8–
9; Reply Br. 2–6. We credit Appellant’s arguments against Menzel in the
first rejection for this rejection in which Menzel is relied on for these same
teachings. The Reply Brief makes clear that Appellant intended arguments
against Menzel to apply to these other rejections. See Reply Br. 2–6.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive as to the first two issues for
the reasons discussed above for the first rejection, and we incorporate those
reasons into our analysis of this rejection. In addition, Jacobson teaches that
arrangements of a pair of zippers and sliders “enables the user to selectively
open or close the zipper stringers at any point along the entire length” “to
permit access to the golf clubs or the pockets of the golf bag” contained in
the carrying case. Jacobson, 2:1–17. These express teachings also provide a
rational underpinning for the Examiner’s proposed combination. See KSR,
550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and
a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

13
However, we agree with Appellant that Menzel does not teach or
suggest outer pockets that lack, or are devoid of, closure mechanisms as
recited in claims 1, 10, and 14. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1 and 14 or claims 5 and 15, which depend therefrom. However,
we sustain the rejection of claim 9, which lacks this feature, but we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 10, which depends from claim 9 and requires
outer pockets “devoid of closure mechanisms.”
Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15
Rejected over Menzel and Vazquez or Mallet, and Nathan or Sachs
This rejection presents slightly different issues than the previous two
rejections. The Examiner again relies on Menzel to teach all features except
a pair of zippers to close the pockets of Menzel, and Vazquez and Mallet are
relied on to teach a pair of zippers as discussed above for the first rejection.
See Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner now cites Nathan and Sachs to
teach an outer pocket devoid of closure mechanisms and not configured with
any closing mechanisms as recited in claims 1, 10, and 14. Id.; Ans. 12–13.
Appellant presents the same arguments as for the previous rejections.
See Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 2–6. These arguments are not persuasive as
to the issues of whether Menzel teaches two pockets closed by a zipper pair
and provides weight distribution for the reasons discussed above for the first
rejection. In light of the Examiner’s further reliance on teachings of Sachs
and Nathan, we also are not persuaded that the modified Menzel satchel still
lacks outer pockets devoid of closure mechanisms as recited in claims 1, 10,
and 14. Both references teach open outer pockets that allow objects to be
stored and removed easily from the outer pocket for easy access. Nathan,
1:5–11, 1:54–2:2, 2:33–36, 3:1–3, Fig. 1; Sachs, 1:1–15, 2:1–26, Fig. 1.
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

14
Appellant argues that Nathan teaches openings 24, 26 to a sleeve 20
but “[a] sleeve is different structure than a pocket and sleeves are typically
provided without closure.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant also argues that Sachs
teaches “fasteners are needed for ‘retaining the pocket openings 25 shut.’”
The Examiner has the better position on this issue. Both references
teach to provide outer pockets on a storage bag with the outer pockets being
devoid of any closure mechanism as the Examiner correctly finds. Ans. 12–
13. Nathan teaches a double entry water bottle carrier whose outer pocket
20 can be accessed from either side thereby enabling ease of access for right-
and left-handed runners and others using the carrying case. Nathan, 1:5–11,
1:54–2:2, 2:33–36, 3:1–3. Sachs teaches a carrying bag with outer pockets
used to access secret storage pockets. Sachs, 1:1–15, 2:1–26. The teachings
of both references provide rational underpinnings to modify Menzel’s outer
pockets to provide openings without closures. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellant’s argument that Nathan’s outer sleeve 20 is not a pocket is
not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claim 1 merely recites “a fourth pocket configured over the third pocket and
a fifth pocket configured over the first pocket.” Claims 9 and 14 recite only
“a fourth pocket having an opening” and “a fifth pocket having an opening.”
The Specification describes the pockets having openings without any further
description of structure or function. See Spec. ¶¶ 9, 24. Nathan’s sleeve 20
has similar structure to receive items and includes an opening through which
the items may be inserted or removed. Nathan, 1:5–67. Even if Appellant’s
Specification described other structure or functions, we are not permitted to
read such unclaimed features from the Specification into the claims. See
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184 and Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325 discussed above.
Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

15
Sachs expressly teaches that “[s]uitable closure means such as a
hookless fastener, snap fastener 32 or similar devices may be provided for
retaining the pocket openings 25 shut.” Sachs, 2:27–32 (emphasis added).
Sachs therefore teaches that the outer pocket opening 25 may lack a closure
or it may include a closure. The Examiner relies on the former embodiment
and teaching to modify Menzel as discussed above. Sachs also suggests that
providing outer pocket opening 25 without a closure may make it less visible
and more concealed while allowing items to be readily slipped in or out of
the hidden pocket 26 without opening the main pocket 12 of the handbag as
Sachs teaches is desirable. Sachs, 2:38–60. Such teachings would improve
the satchel bag of Menzel similarly. See KSR, 550 at 417.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and
14 and claims 5, 10, and 15, which depend therefrom on this ground.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15
Rejected over Menzel, Jacobson, and Nathan or Sachs
The Examiner relies on the teachings of Menzel and Jacobson to teach
all the features of the claimed satchel, as discussed above, and further relies
on the teachings of Nathan and Sachs to modify Menzel further to include
outer fourth and fifth pockets without a closure mechanism as discussed in
the previous rejection. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 10–13. Appellant presents no
new arguments that were not already considered and found unpersuasive in
the previous rejections discussed above. See Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 2–6.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15
on this additional ground.

Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

16
Rejections of Claim 3
The Examiner rejects claim 3, which depends from claim 1, on each
of the previous four grounds of rejection further in view of Baroque, which
the Examiner relies on to teach a ring and snap fasteners recited in claim 3.
Final Act. 5–6. Appellant does not present arguments for this rejection. See
Appeal Br. 8–9. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under
the first two grounds of rejection, where we did not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, but we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 3 on the latter two
grounds of rejection, which rely on Nathan and Sachs to teach the outer
fourth and fifth pockets without a closure mechanism as recited in claim 1.
Rejections of Claim 4
The Examiner rejects claim 4, which depends from claim 1, on each
of the previous four grounds of rejection further in view of Schlipper, which
the Examiner relies on to teach shoulder strap mesh recited in claim 4. Final
Act. 6. Appellant does not present arguments for this rejection. See Appeal
Br. 8–9. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 under the first
two grounds of rejection, where we did not sustain the rejection of claim 1,
but we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 4 on the latter two grounds
of rejection, which rely on Nathan and Sachs to teach the outer fourth and
fifth pockets without a closure mechanism as recited in claim 1.

Appeal 2019-000482
Application 14/190,067

17
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§  
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 9,
10, 14, 15
103(a) Menzel, Vazquez, Mallet 9 1, 5, 10,
14, 15
1, 5, 9,
10, 14, 15
103(a) Menzel, Jacobson 9 1, 5, 10,
14, 15
1, 5, 9,
10, 14, 15
103(a) Menzel, Vazquez, Mallet,
Nathan, Sachs
1, 5, 9,
10, 14, 15

1, 5, 9,
10, 14, 15
103(a) Menzel, Jacobson,
Nathan, Sachs
1, 5, 9,
10, 14, 15

3 103(a) Menzel, Vazquez, Mallet,
Bourque
3
3 103(a) Menzel, Jacobson,
Bourque
3
3 103(a) Menzel, Vazquez, Mallet,
Nathan, Sachs, Bourque
3
3 103(a) Menzel, Jacobson,
Nathan, Sachs
3
4 103(a) Menzel, Vazquez, Mallet,
Schlipper
4
4 103(a) Menzel, Jacobson,
Schlipper
4
4 103(a) Menzel, Vazquez, Mallet,
Nathan, Sachs, Schlipper
4
4 103(a) Menzel, Jacobson,
Nathan, Sachs, Schlipper
4
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 9,
10, 14, 15

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED