Appeal No. 95-4738
Application No. 08/146,868
May 12, 1995) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellants' brief (Paper No. 12, filed
April 17, 1995) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Bishop. The issue presented by the examiner and the appellants
with respect to claim 1 is whether the limitation "an annular
stop surface integrally formed as part of the bottom wall" is
either (1) met by Bishop's back-up ring 33 on a bottom wall of
can 3, or (2) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellants' invention.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007