Ex parte RONALD C. IDOL, et al. - Page 5

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

          example, by Schifferly at 12 or 52), or outwardly converging                
          apertures as disclosed by Russell at 36.                                    
               Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.                      
          Rejections (2) and (4)                                                      
               The claims to which these rejections apply are all                     
          dependent, directly or ultimately, on independent claims 1 or 21,           
          included in rejection (1).  Since the additional references                 
          applied in rejections (2) and (4) do not supply the deficiencies            
          noted with regard to rejection (1), rejections (2) and (4) will             
          not be sustained.                                                           
          Rejection (3)                                                               
               This rejection will not be sustained as to claims 14, 16 to            
          18 and 27, which are directly or ultimately dependent on                    
          independent claims 1 an 21, for the same reason as stated above             
          with regard to rejections (2) and (4).                                      
               Independent claims 34, 35 and 38 do not require that the cap           
          be made of plastic, or that the apertures terminate at the planar           
          inner surface of the cap, and therefore are readable on the metal           
          cap shown by Kleinhans insofar as the shape of the apertures is             
          concerned.  However, if the container cap were metal, the                   
          particular structure recited for joining the cap to the body                
          would not have been obvious over the applied prior art, for                 
          neither Kleinhans, Russell, Schifferly nor Earl discloses any               

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007