Appeal No. 1999-0611 Page 4
Application No. 08/814,272
7. Claims 5, 6, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Schlicht.
8. Claims 5, 6, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Norberg in view of Schlicht.
9. Claims 5, 6, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Fimbell in view of Schlicht.
The complete text of the examiner's rejections and
response to the argument presented by the appellant appears in
the final rejection (Paper No. 8) and the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 13), while the complete statement of the
appellant's argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 12).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The Norberg and Fimbell Rejections
Turning first to rejections 1 and 2, we note that
independent claims 1 and 28 both require that the closure have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007