Appeal 2005-0801
Application 09/848,628
54. Schafer and Martin are prior art vis-à-vis applicant under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
55. The Examiner found that Schafer describes, “in Figure 1
a waste cart having a hollow body, a lower portion, an upper portion, and at
least one vent hole (15) in the lower portion, and a lid.” The Examiner
further stated, “The Schafer lid has vent holes (21).”
56. However, the Examiner found that Schafer “does not
teach a hood positioned over the lid vent hole(s) to shield the vent hole from
rain.”
57. The Examiner further found that Martin ‘216 describes,
in the same field of endeavor, “a tank or container having a vent hood (38)
over a vent hole.”
58. The Examiner held that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
modified the Schafer waste cart’s lid to have a hood over its vent
holes as taught by Martine ‘216 to prevent contaminants from entering
the container.”
59. On September 28, 1998, applicant filed an amendment
responding to the Examiner's Final Office action (Res. to final action).
60. The amendment cancelled claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, and
14-20.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007