Appeal No. 97-4166
Application No. 08/478,647
USPQ 232 (1984). See also In re Troiel, 274 F.2d 944, 948-49,
124 USPQ 502, 505 (CCPA 1960).
It is also the appellant's contention that our decision
improperly indicated that Hummer fairly suggests a cavity that
has a diameter of "approximately 2.165 inches" as set forth in
claim 71. We disagree for the reasons stated on page 13 of
our decision. In this regard, we observe that there is no
claim limitation which requires that the "wall" be of this
diameter throughout its entire height and, thus, there is no
claim limitation which precludes the arrangement of Hummer
wherein the lower portion of the wall has such a diameter. It
is well settled that features not claimed may not be relied
upon in support of patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
With respect to rejection (VI), the appellant broadly
asserts that there is no motivation to combine the teachings
of Hummer and Fluharty; however, this argument was fully
addressed on pages 16 and 17 of our decision.
Finally, as to rejection (VII), the appellant argues that
surface "30" is on the base, rather than on the container as
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007