Appeal No.2000-1098 8
Application No. 08/661,415
matter.
In addition, the claimed subject matter requires that at least one element of the
device be a “sealing layer.” See claim 1. The examiner’s finding is limited to a quotation
from Mihailide that, “other suitable means of joining the portions 14 and 16 could be
used.” See Mihailide column 4, lines 40-45. The examiner thereafter relies on Bondanini
for its disclosure of a filter for coffee percolators wherein pins penetrate through two layers
to be secured in a third thereby securing the filter. See Answer, pages 4 and 5. The
examiner however, has made no finding of a sealing layer located between the first member
and the beverage pack as required by the claimed subject matter.
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that
each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the combination of prior
art references or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The Examiner simply does not adequately address these limitations of the claimed subject
matter. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the examiner.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 18 through 22, 24 through 27, 30 and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mihailide in view of Bondanini is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007