Appeal No. 1998-1772 Page 12
Application No. 08/578,047
We agree with the appellant's argument (reply brief, pp.
5-7) that the claimed "piston" within the container is not
suggested or taught by the applied prior art. Accordingly,
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 and 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
The examiner's statement in the examiner's communication
(Paper No. 19) that "it would have been obvious to provide a
piston within the container of Brooks if the collected
semisolid is to be injected from the top, instead of bottom,
of the container" is not supported by any evidence that would 9
have led one skilled in the art to arrive at the claimed
invention.
Claims 11 and 12
We agree with the appellant's argument (reply brief, pp.
7-8) that the claimed "rotating" steps set forth in claim 11
and the claimed "second container" set forth in claim 12 are
not suggested or taught by the applied prior art.
9The applied prior art contains no teaching of the
claimed "piston" within the container.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007