Ex parte RONALD C. IDOL, et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 96-0681                                                          
          Application 08/041,715                                                      


          container.  Claims 1, 21 and 38 are exemplary of the claims on              
          appeal, and are reproduced in the appendix hereto.                          
               The references relied upon by the examiner in the final                
          rejection are:                                                              
          Schifferly                         2,994,404       Aug.   1, 1961           
          Kleinhans                          3,245,737       Apr.  12, 1966           
          Russell et al. (Russell)           4,093,105       June   6, 1978           
          Earl                               4,770,318       Sept. 13, 1988           
               The claims on appeal stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.            
           103 on the following grounds:                                             
          (1) Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 21 and 22, unpatentable over Kleinhans in            
          view of Russell;                                                            
          (2) Claims 12, 13, 20, 25 and 26, unpatentable over Kleinhans in            
          view of Russell and Schifferly;                                             
          (3) Claims 14, 16 to 18, 27, 34, 35 and 38, unpatentable over               
          Kleinhans in view of Russell, Schifferly and Earl;                          
          (4) Claim 29, unpatentable over Kleinhans in view of Russell and            
          Earl.                                                                       
          Rejection (1)                                                               
               The basis for this rejection, as stated on pages 3 and 4 of            
          the examiner’s answer, is in essence that:                                  
               It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time                  
               of the invention, to modify the structure of the                       
               Kleinhans apparatus to have the body made of a molded                  
               plastic and to include apertures in the end wall of the                
               container, in view of Russell et al, since such would                  
               reduce the cost of mass produced containers by making                  
                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007