Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 19
Application No. 08/395,719
With regard to claim 6, it is our opinion that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the appellant's invention to modify the cylindrical wall 11 of
Torras' container to be transparent as suggested by Westgate's
teaching to provide a glass or clear plastic jar to permit the
contents of the jar to be visible.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed; the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1, 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed; and new rejections of claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, claims 1, 3 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have
been added pursuant to provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection of one or
more claims, this decision contains new grounds of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by
final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53131, 53197 (Oct. 10, 1997),
1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) provides, "A new ground of rejection shall not be
considered final for purposes of judicial review."
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007