Appeal No. 97-4168
Application 08/348,890
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed June 10,
1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 15, filed April 18, 1997) for
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that Büdenbender ‘576 discloses a
sheet metal container with a cap-type closure wherein the con-
tainer has a neck region (e.g., 22, 23 of Fig. 10) like that set
forth in appellant’s claim 7 on appeal. Figures 14-20 of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007