Appeal No. 1999-0107
Application No. 08/700,427
reply brief) unpersuasively disputes the rejections on the basis
that the references do not respond to the container wall
limitations recited in claim 1.
We shall therefore sustain the three standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of claim 15 as being unpatentable over Gouge
‘601 in view of Hodakowski, as being unpatentable over Gouge ‘601
in view of Gouge ‘595 and Hodakowski, and as being unpatentable
over Gouge ‘601 in view of Edwards and Hodakowski.
In summary, the decision of the examiner:
a) to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed;
b) to reject claims 1 through 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being unpatentable over Gouge ‘601 is affirmed;
c) to reject claims 1 through 9, 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gouge ‘595 in view of Gouge
‘601 is affirmed;
d) to reject claims 1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Edwards in view of Gouge ‘601 is
reversed;
e) to reject claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gouge ‘601 in view of Edwards is
affirmed;
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007