Appeal No. 1998-3413
Application No. 08/512,782
member of Coleman) as is required in appellant’s claim 3 on
appeal. For that reason, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based on Coleman, or the same rejection of claims 4 through 6
which depend from claim 3.
Independent claim 37, like claim 3, includes a limitation
concerning molding a locking tab "at an outer extremity of the
ring member," and for the same reasons advanced with regard to
claim 3 above distinguishes over Coleman alone. In addition,
we note that claim 37 also recites that the locking tab
"substantially surrounds the downwardly extending outer
portion of the [rim of the] container member" and that it is
locked around an extremity of the downwardly extending outer
portion of the rim of the container member. While the three
widely spaced locking tabs or lips (15) in Coleman clearly are
locked around an extremity of the downwardly extending outer
portion (18N) of the rim of the container or pot (18), they do
not "substantially surround" (i.e., extend a substantial
distance circumferentially around) the downwardly extending
outer portion of the rim of the container member as required
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007