Appeal No. 1997-4046 Page 12
Application No. 08/040,117
fill the container is short of the mouth of the container.
Mayeux, cited for its teaching of using a rotary valve to
control flow to a collection container, fails to supply the
teaching missing from Manas. It is our view that the combined
teachings of Manas and Mayeux fail to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited
in claim 11. We therefore will not sustain this rejection of
independent claim 11 or of dependent claims 15 and 16.
The addition of Risser in the rejection of dependent
claims 12-14 fails to overcome the deficiency in the
combination of Manas and Mayeux that is pointed out above.
This being the case, the rejection of claims 12-14 is not
sustained.
Claims 19, 20 and 22-27 stand rejected as being
unpatentable over Harris ‘981 in view of Pang and Marsoner. 3
Independent claim 19 is directed to a sample container top
having an upper portion in which there is a valve member and a
3It would appear from the manner in which the examiner has
presented this rejection that it should be Harris ‘981 in view
of Pang or Marsoner, rather than Pang and Marsoner, as it is
stated. The appellants’ arguments are applicable in either
case, as is our conclusion.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007