Appeal No. 1998-2066
Application No. 08/315,629
positioned below said rim at a location adjacent said opening in
said top” in claim 1 and “an indentation in said wall portion to
accommodate the lower lip of a consumer” in claim 5.
We, of course, were aware of the language of original claims
1 and 5 at the time of our original decision. Nevertheless, the
fact remains that the language of the appellant’s original claims
1 and 5 does not require “a circumferential groove having a first
radial depth and a second radial depth extending further radially
inwardly than said first radial depth.”
The appellant also refers to his original specification and
drawings as providing support for the limitation. However, the
issue of support for the limitation in the appellant’s
specification, or Muller’s for that matter, is not an issue that
we must decide in order to determine whether or not claim 7 is
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b).
In conclusion, as to the requested rehearing of our
underlying decision, we have carefully and fully reconsidered
that decision in light of all of the commentary in the request.
However, for the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded
to alter that earlier decision. Therefore, the request for
rehearing is granted to the extent of reconsidering our decision,
but is denied with respect to making any changes therein.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007