Appeal No. 1997-4046 Page 11
Application No. 08/040,117
Peterson and Golias also form the basis for the rejections
of dependent claims 18 and 36, along with Kuroda and Harris
‘981, respectively. Neither of the latter two references
alleviates the shortcoming discussed above regarding Peterson
and Golias, and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness is
lacking with regard to claims 18 and 36, and we also will not
sustain the rejection of these claims.
The examiner has entered a second rejection of independent
claim 11 on the basis of Manas in view of Mayeux. This
rejection fails for essentially same reasons as we expressed
above with regard to the other rejection, that is, the
references fail to disclose or teach the required means for
causing liquid to flow into the container until it overflows.
Manas discloses a machine for filling a container by means of a
spout 31, which is surrounded by an annular overflow tube 42.
As was the case with Peterson, there is no explicit teaching of
filling the container to such an extent that liquid flows over
the brim, nor does it appear that this could inherently be the
case. As shown in Manas’ Figure 3, liquid would flow out of
the container through the overflow spout before the container
could overflow its brim, and the height to which liquid could
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007