Appeal No. 98-2111
Application 08/596,564
Patterson ‘028 shows a cylindrical container (24) in the same
environment, and concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Patterson ‘028 to
have made the container/glass (24) of Patterson ‘737
cylindrical.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
6, filed
May 16, 1997) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 12, mailed
February 4, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 11, filed
November 17, 1997) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, to the declaration of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007