Appeal No. 97-0172
Application 08/173,560
must be considered and that it is error to ignore specific
limitations distinguish-
ing over the references." In re Boe, 505 F.2d 1297, 1299, 184
USPQ 38, 40 (CCPA 1974). When all claimed limitations are
considered, Rockola clearly does not anticipate the appealed
claims.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.
Rejections (2) and (3)
The bases of these rejections are set forth on pages 5 to
7 of the examiner's answer. After fully considering the
record in light of the arguments in the appellant's brief and
reply brief, and in the examiner's answer and supplemental
answer, we conclude that the rejections will not be sustained.
Appellant states at page 3 of the reply brief that he
"does not contest the fact that products or material other
than liquid beverages are placed in cans which are dispensable
from a vending machine". However, this is not determinative
of the question of obviousness of the claimed subject matter,
as the examiner seems to assume. What is lacking in the
applied prior art is any teaching or suggestion of filling a
container, which is sized to contain a liquid beverage and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007