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
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007