Appeal No. 97-3661
Application No. 08/456,692
which the appellant does not dispute, except for the step of
forming it to be of a “unitary one-piece continuous
construction.” With regard to this, as we expressed above in the
new rejection we entered, it is our opinion that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the claimed
funnel in such a fashion for the self-evident advantages thereof,
based upon the common knowledge and common sense that should be
accorded to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As we did above, we conclude that the teachings of Melvin,
considered in the light of the knowledge which must be accorded
to one of ordinary skill in the art, establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of independent
claims 28 and 33, and we will sustain the rejection of these two
claims.
Claims 29 and 34 add to their respective parent claims the
additional step of “forming a rim on the outer part of” the
sloping sides and ends. Again referring to our new rejection,
the outer edge of the Melvin funnel constitutes a “rim,” and
therefore we shall sustain the rejection of claims 29 and 34.
We reach the opposite conclusion with regard to claims 30
and 35, which add a “recess.” As was the case above with regard
to the Section 102 rejection, this feature is not taught by
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007