Appeal No. 1998-1349 Page 2
Application No. 08/455,859
The appellants’ invention relates to a can end. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the
appellants’ brief.
The prior art
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Young 1,100,005 Jun. 16, 1914
Kraska 4,093,102 Jun. 6, 1978
The rejections
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kraska.
Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Young.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 17, mailed August 26, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007