Appeal No. 2000-0004 Page 9
Application No. 08/872,004
Hasselquist does not teach that the container disclosed
therein needs reinforcement. Rather, Hasselquist discloses that
the sidewalls are supported by air in space 16 and fluid once the
bowl is filled (Col. 4, lines 29 through 38). Likewise, McBride
does not disclose that the collar 1 can provide support for the
sidewalls of a bowl. As such, we agree with the appellant that
the prior art does not disclose a tubular band which is
insertable into a bowl to provide support for the sidewalls of
the bowl as is required by claims 7 and 12 from which claims 8
through 10 and claims 13 through 15 depend. In our view, the
examiner’s finding that the collar disclosed in McBride would
provide support for the bowl of Hasselquist is speculative and
can not form the factual basis on which a conclusion of
obviousness rest. See Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017, 154 USPQ at 177
(CCPA 1967).
In view of the foregoing, the examiner’s rejection of claims
7 through 10 and 12 through 15 is not sustained.
In summary:
(1) The examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Harrigan is sustained.
(2) The examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by McBride is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007