Appeal No. 97-3661
Application No. 08/456,692
with claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention (see
Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1580, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027
(Fed. Cir. 1988)). These claims add to their respective parent
claims the additional step of “a rim on the outer part of” the
sloping sides and ends of the funnel. The common definition of
“rim” is the outer edge or border of something. The outer edge 2
of the Melvin funnel therefore constitutes a “rim,”, and thus the
terms of these claims also are met.
The Examiner’s Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The first Section 103 rejection advanced by the examiner is
that claims 28-30 and 33-35 would have been obvious in view of
Melvin. Independent claim 28 is directed to a process for making
a funnel, and independent claim 33 to a funnel made by a
particular process. We begin our analysis by reiterating our
finding that all of the elements of the funnel recited in these
claims are disclosed in Melvin, and in the required relationship
to one another. We share the examiner’s view that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the
funnel in the manner set forth in claims 28 and 33, a conclusion
2See, for example, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1996, page 1009.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007