Appeal No. 1998-3413
Application No. 08/512,782
examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 7 based on Coleman, and
refer back to that discussion here. Regarding claim 2, we
view the elements (11-17) as constituting the collar or ring
member (10) in Coleman and agree with the examiner that
Coleman teaches the step of removably locking the ring member
(10) with the rim of the first container member (18). Thus,
we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Coleman.
Considering the examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Coleman, we must agree with
appellant (brief, page 27) that Coleman fails to teach or
suggest 1) a container member forming step wherein the rim is
formed with an outwardly-facing concavity like that depicted
in Figure 2 of the application and 2) a forming step for the
ring member wherein the ring member is formed with a
downwardly-extending concavity which corresponds to the
concavity of the container member rim and wherein the ring
member is fitted onto the rim in an overlapping relationship.
The examiner’s position (answer, page 5) that the shape of the
container member rim and ring member are merely a matter of
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007