Appeal No. 1998-0254
Application No. 08/511,257
the opening of Horrocks would not function differently if it were the same dimensions as
claimed by appellant. This raises the question in our mind why such a change
would have been obvious to make if it did not result in any functional difference.
Turning to the rejection of claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 19 and 20, our findings with respect to
Horrocks have been discussed above. The references to Comfort and Pehr do not
ameliorate the difficulties we have discussed with respect to Horrocks. Comfort's slot
does not extend to the peripheral edge thereof. Pehr shows a latch and hinge for a child-
proof container, and while we acknowledge that it would have been obvious to provide
such a latch and hinge on the container of Horrocks, Horrocks, Comfort and Pehr as
combined do not satisfy appellant's claim limitations. The rejections of claims 2, 3, 10, 11,
19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
In regards to the rejection of claim 5, Feimer shows a soup tureen with a lid with a
recess and a recess cover that closely overlies the handle of the utensil placed in the
tureen. Here again, the examiner provides no motivation or suggestion for the
modification of Horrocks with the three references, especially the soup tureen of Feimer.
Finally, turning to the rejections of claims 2, 10 and 12 or 2, 10 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over under Horrocks in view of Stone or Horrocks in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007