Ex parte HILLIS et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1999-0402                                                        
          Application No. 08/567,385                                                  


               Appellants’ invention pertains to a container having a                 
          reinforced bottom to prevent downward deflection of the bottom              
          over time.  Claim 8, a copy of which is found in an appendix                
          to appellants’ main brief, is illustrative of the appealed                  
          subject matter.                                                             
               The references cited by the examiner in support of the                 
          final rejection are:                                                        
          Sere                         3,628,684              Dec. 21,                
          1971                                                                        
          Gyenge et al. (Gyenge)       4,674,647              Jun. 23,                
          1987  Kruelskie                    4,928,839              May               
          29, 1990                                                                    
               Claims 8, 18, 22, 23, 25 and 28 stand rejected under                   
          35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sere.                            
               Claims 14 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as               
          being unpatentable over Sere in view of Gyenge.                             
               Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as               
          being unpatentable over Sere in view of Kruelskie.                          
               Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs                 
          (Paper Nos. 16 and 18) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.              
          17) for the respective positions of appellants and the                      
          examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.                          



                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007