Appeal No. 97-4166
Application No. 08/478,647
The appellant argues that we ignored the limitations in
claims 57 and 91-96 which require that the relative diameters
of the holder and beverage container are such that the
beverage container is "loosely disposed" in the cavity and
removable therefrom in a vertical direction "without
substantial frictional resistance." However, we carefully
pointed out on page 13 of our decision that Hummer in Fig. 7
clearly illustrates that the cavity (unnumbered in Fig. 7, but
identified by the numerals 66, 68 in Fig. 6) of the holder is
slightly larger than the beverage can 72. In view of this
teaching, we do not believe that it can be seriously contended
that Hummer's beverage can is not "loosely disposed" in the
cavity and removable therefrom in a vertical direction
"without substantial frictional resistance." In fact, as we
expressly pointed out on page 14 of our decision
Hummer in Fig. 7 clearly shows the beverage
container or can to be spaced from the wall of the
cavity. Indeed, the appellant even relies upon this
space or clearance in the "blow-up" of Fig. 7 on
page 34 of the brief in order to achieve the
depicted tilting movement of the beverage container
or can. If such clearance did not exist, the
beverage container or can could not be tilted in the
manner depicted. The appellant simply cannot have
it "both ways" as he is attempting to do.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007