Appeal No. 2000-2024
Application No. 09/059,207
nor has the examiner explained why they would have been
obvious thereover notwithstanding the above-discussed
differences between Keeler and the claimed subject matter.
Rejection (2)
In view of the fact that we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 25, we likewise will not sustain the
rejection of claim 7, dependent thereon, inasmuch as Konaka
does not supply the deficiencies noted above with regard to
Keeler.
Turning to claims 14 and 19, the examiner concluded that
those claims are unpatentable in that it would have been
obvious to modify the apparatus of Keeler by providing Keeler
with the fitment applying means disclosed by Konaka (first
action (Paper No. 7), pages 3 to 4).
Appellants do not disagree that the combination proposed
by the examiner would have been obvious. They argue, however
(brief, pages 6 and 7), that the combination would not be such
that "said attaching means is installed at said conveying
means without said conveying means having been altered." This
argument is not persuasive. If the Keeler apparatus were
modified as the examiner proposes, the containers would be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007