Appeal No. 98-0070 Application 29/019,900 "Rosen" reference cannot stand. Unilever shows four square compartments, and the Examiner did not regard it as the basic "Rosen" reference for this rejection. Thus, we need not address that alternate scenario. Our discussion is limited to the rationale on which the rejection was actually based. We decline to introduce a new or alternate rationale in the first instance on appeal. Also, it should be noted that the examiner has failed to account for the appearance of the transverse partition between the compartments of the claimed design. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection based on Allen and Unilever. The rejection based on Miscoe We reject the appellant’s argument that the examiner rejected the claimed design based on a single top plan view illustrated in Miscoe. The entire description pertaining to the embodiment corresponding to Miscoe’s Figure 3 was the basis of the examiner’s rejection. Note that in column 2, lines 1-3 and 9-18, Miscoe contains discussions about the Figure 3 embodiment. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007