Appeal No. 2002-1533
Application No. 09/055,377
Rejection (3)
Claims 29-31 depend either directly or indirectly from
claim 17. In rejecting these claims as being unpatentable over
Zimmerman in view of Myers and further in view of Staggs, the
examiner relies on Myers for its showing of an inner recess and
lip connection and Staggs for its showing of a double-walled
insulated container. The examiner’s rationale in combining these
reference teachings with Zimmerman to arrive at the subject
matter of claims 29-31 is no more convincing here then it was in
rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman and Staggs
and claim 17 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman and Myers. It
followings that we also will not sustain the rejection of
claims 29-31 based on the combined teachings of Zimmerman, Myers
and Staggs.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007