Appeal No. 1999-2730
Application 09/008,836
closure is removed (Fig. 5 embodiment), it is our view that
Stevens does not suggest, and in fact, teaches away from the
examiner's combination of references. Certainly, the carafe
of Whitney is designed to be opened and closed many times
during its use. The closure of Stevens is not. The design of
Stevens is antithetical to a container fastener designed to be
opened and closed readily throughout its life by the user.
The citation of appellant's prior art does not remedy the
problems we have found in the combination of Stevens and
Whitney. For these reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 3 and
5 is reversed.
We have further considered the additional prior art cited
against dependent claims 4 and 6, but we find therein no
disclosure, teaching or suggestion that ameliorates the
problems we have found with respect to the references used in
the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5. Accordingly, the
rejections of claims 4 and 6 are also reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007