Appeal No. 96-4162
Application 08/313,901
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse
these rejections. We reject claims 1 through 4 and 6, however, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Wilkinson et al. (Wilkinson) 3,556,338 Jan. 19, 1971
Baugh 3,592,349 Jul. 13, 1971
Schwartzburg et al. (Schwartzburg) 4,201,360 May 6, 1980
Luther (Luther ‘891) 4,881,891 Nov. 21, 1989
Luther (Luther ‘898) 5,167,898 Dec. 1, 1992
Zushi 5,183,615 Feb. 2, 1993
The additional reference relied upon by this panel is:
Blenkush 5,033,777 Jul. 23, 1991
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
being based on a specification which fails to provide an enabling disclosure of how to
make and/or use the invention.
The examiner’s explanation indicates that the specification is not considered to
comply with the enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
because:
The specification does not disclose how to form a container.
Figure 2 does not show and the specification does not teach
how to form a container. The mold surfaces in figure 2 would
form a solid article wherein a solid article would not have a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007