Appeal No. 97-0172
Application 08/173,560
dispensable from a canned drink vending machine, with
something other than a liquid beverage.
Neither Mullin nor Sampson contains any such teaching, nor
does
Rockola suggest that the disclosed beverage cans might contain
anything other than beverages. Absent any such teaching or
suggestion, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been
established.
Rejection Under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), claims 23 and 24 are
rejected for failing to comply with 35 USC § 112, second
paragraph. These claims are indefinite in that while parent
claim 15 recites "at least one container", claims 23 and 24
each recite "said containers". This recitation of plural
containers thus has no antecedent basis. Also, it is not
clear whether the term "is loaded" is intended to be a method
step (i.e., "loading") or simply a description of the vending
machine's contents.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 15 to 17 and 21
to 24 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007