Appeal No. 97-3661
Application No. 08/456,692
Melvin, and we therefore will not sustain the rejection of these
claims.
The second Section 103 rejection made by the examiner is
that claims 26, 27, 31, 32, 36, 37, 40 and 41 are unpatentable
over the teachings of Melvin in view of Belden, Hepburn and
Joseph. Claims 26, 31, 36 and 40 add the limitation that the rim
in the claims from which they depend is “directed outwardly” from
the sloping sides and ends of the funnel. All three of the
secondary references here applied disclose rims extending
outwardly from the sloping sides of funnels. We agree with the
examiner that extending the rim of the Melvin funnel outwardly
from the sloping sides would have been an obvious expedient to
one of ordinary skill in the art for the self-evident advantages
thereof, such as structural rigidity, which would have been known
to the artisan. The rejection of these claims therefore is
sustained.
Claims 27, 32, 37 and 41 add the “recess” discussed above,
which in our view is not taught by Melvin. Nor do we find this
to be rendered obvious by Belden, Hepburn or Joseph. We
therefore will not sustain the rejection of these claims.
We have carefully considered the arguments presented by the
appellant as they apply to the examiner’s rejections and to the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007