Appeal No. 1997-4046 Page 14
Application No. 08/040,117
227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985), aff’d. mem., 759
F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
A prima facie case of obviousness has been established by
the applied prior art, and we will sustain this rejection.
The valve member added by claim 20 clearly is disclosed in
Harris ‘981 (movable valve element 33), as is the container top
of claim 22 (elements 27 and 36). As for the dimensions set
forth in claims 23-27, we agree with the examiner that they
would have been obvious matters of design choice to the
artisan, who is presumed to possess skill (In re Sovish,
supra). Further in this regard, we point out that the
appellants have not directed us to evidence of record which
would establish that the claimed dimensions are critical. This
rejection of claims 20 and 22-27 is sustained.
The examiner also takes the position that the subject
matter of independent claim 19, and dependent claims 20-27, is
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Harris ‘471, Pang
and Marsoner. As was the case with the other Harris4
reference, we find in Harris ‘471 all of the subject matter
4See footnote 3.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007