Appeal No. 2000-0789 Page 6
Application No. 08/856,373
We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, p. 4) that
the claimed first and second reinforcing rims integrally
fastened to the circular drum head and the circular drum
bottom, respectively, are not readable on Mittinger's metal
keg. In the answer (p. 3), the examiner determined that the
claimed first and second reinforcing rims were readable on the
outer wall of Mittinger's head 12 and the outer wall of
Mittinger's bottom 4. We do not agree. In that regard, the
outer wall of Mittinger's head 12 is downwardly turned portion
13 (see Figure 3) which has a diameter greater than the
diameter of the cylindrical drum body (contrary to the
language of claims 1 and 3). Likewise, the outer wall of
Mittinger's bottom 4 is upwardly turned portion 6 (see Figure
3) which has a diameter greater than the diameter of the
cylindrical drum body (contrary to the language of claims 1
and 3). Moreover, the claimed first and second reinforcing
rims are not readable on the curved portions 8, 17 or the ribs
9, 9', 13', 14' of Mittinger's head 12 and bottom 4 since the
curved portions 8, 17 and the ribs 9, 9', 13', 14' are all
parts of the structure that permits Mittinger's head 12 and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007