Appeal No. 96-1812
Application No. 07/984,762
indicates to us that, collectively considered, they would not
have been suggestive of the specifically claimed closure
vessel assembly. Akin to appellants’ point of view as
articulated in the briefs, we do not perceive that these
references can fairly be said to address closure vessel
assemblies utilizable within a range of temperatures between -
196°C and +100°C, an express limitation required by claims 25
and 35. Contrary to the view of the examiner (answer, pages 7
and 8), a reference teaching must be reasonably suggestive of
a closure vessel assembly that would have functioned at all
temperatures within the aforementioned range to satisfy the
claimed temperature range limitation. Thus, we cannot sustain
the examiner’s rejection under 35 USC 103.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Under the authority of 37 CFR 1.196(b), this panel of the
board introduces the following new grounds of rejection.
Claims 25 through 42 are rejected under 35 USC 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007