Appeal No. 2000-0303 Page 5
Application No. 08/886,649
inner peripheral wall for draining water; and a plurality of
openings in the top surface of the central portion.
It is our view that these limitations are not suggested
by the applied prior art. In fact, our review of the
examiner's rejection reveals that the examiner never did
determine that it would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art to have arrived at the claimed subject matter. In that
regard, it is clear to us from the answer (pp. 4-8) that the
examiner's rejection was based upon the Figure 4 embodiment of
Stretch's strainer and not the Figure 3 embodiment of
Stretch's strainer. Thus, one difference between the Figure 4
embodiment of Stretch's strainer and the claimed subject
matter is that the cup-shaped body has an upstanding smooth
uncorrugated outer peripheral wall. In the rejections under
appeal, the examiner has not made any determination that it
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Figure
4 embodiment of Stretch's strainer to have an upstanding
smooth uncorrugated outer peripheral wall. Thus, the examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007