Appeal No. 96-3615
Application 08/237,567
“is synchronized with the detecting of the rotational position
of said container by means of a means for detecting rotational
position.” The examiner has taken the position (answer, page
12) that this step is inherent and/or essential in Alonso.
The examiner’s position is not reasonable in that he has
provided no evidence or convincing scientific reasoning in
support thereof, and none is apparent to us. We therefore
will not sustain the standing § 102 rejection of claim 25.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection based on Alonso and Fan or
Fischer
(rejections(c) and (d))
Claims 5-8 depend either directly or indirectly from
claim 31 and therefore require, through their dependency, that
the container have an aperture, and that the pellucid sealing
means seal said aperture. Fan is relied upon by the examiner
for its teaching of a V-blender. Fischer is relied upon in a
simpler capacity. While the secondary references indeed
disclose V-blenders, neither of them contain any teaching
which makes up for the deficiency of Alonso with respect to
the aperture and pellucid sealing means limitation discussed
above. Therefore, the standing § 103 rejections of claims 5-8
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007