Appeal No. 95-3789 Page 3
Application No. 08/047,047
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a hot filled container
and a method of making a hot filled container. Claims 15 and 19
are representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of
those claims, as they appear in the appendix to the appellants'
brief, is attached to this decision.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Agrawal et al. (Agrawal) 4,497,855 Feb. 5, 1985
Collette 4,755,404 July 5, 1988
Miller et al. (Miller) 4,785,950 Nov. 22, 1988
Cook 1,062,671 Sep. 18, 1979
(Canada)
Claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Collette in view of
Cook and Agrawal.2
2This ground of rejection was set forth as a new ground of
rejection in the examiner's answer (Paper No. 22, mailed March
22, 1995).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007