Appeal No. 96-0919
Application 08/027,922
is predicated on this erroneous determination, it too is flawed.
Reasonably construed, Deiters’ opening 40 is beneath its
associated can crusher, and is not laterally spaced therefrom.
Thus, the opening 40 does not meet the recitation in claim 54 of
“means, laterally spaced from said can crusher, for passing
articles through said first top into said interior recess.”
Moreover, since minimizing the handling of cans is a principle
object of the Deiters construction, one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have found it obvious to laterally space the
opening from the can crusher. Thus, Deiters does not teach, and
would not have suggested, a receptacle as recited in claim 54.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007