Appeal No. 96-0681
Application 08/041,715
container. Claims 1, 21 and 38 are exemplary of the claims on
appeal, and are reproduced in the appendix hereto.
The references relied upon by the examiner in the final
rejection are:
Schifferly 2,994,404 Aug. 1, 1961
Kleinhans 3,245,737 Apr. 12, 1966
Russell et al. (Russell) 4,093,105 June 6, 1978
Earl 4,770,318 Sept. 13, 1988
The claims on appeal stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 on the following grounds:
(1) Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 21 and 22, unpatentable over Kleinhans in
view of Russell;
(2) Claims 12, 13, 20, 25 and 26, unpatentable over Kleinhans in
view of Russell and Schifferly;
(3) Claims 14, 16 to 18, 27, 34, 35 and 38, unpatentable over
Kleinhans in view of Russell, Schifferly and Earl;
(4) Claim 29, unpatentable over Kleinhans in view of Russell and
Earl.
Rejection (1)
The basis for this rejection, as stated on pages 3 and 4 of
the examiner’s answer, is in essence that:
It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time
of the invention, to modify the structure of the
Kleinhans apparatus to have the body made of a molded
plastic and to include apertures in the end wall of the
container, in view of Russell et al, since such would
reduce the cost of mass produced containers by making
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007