Appeal No. 2000-1782
Application No. 08/933,639
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 20 as being
unpatentable over Joyner in view of Saigne, Bright and Rohrig.
IV. Remand for further consideration
The application is remanded to the examiner to consider
the following matters:
A. whether the term “said vent” in claims 1 and 5 lacks a
proper antecedent basis which possibly renders these claims
and the claims depending therefrom indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph;
B. whether claims 1 through 4 and 20 are limited to the
drinking spout embodiment shown in Figure 4, and if so,
whether the recitation in parent claim 1 that the container
and vent form an integral one piece unit poses an accuracy
problem under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and/or a
written description problem under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph; and
C. whether the recitation in claims 2, 6, 10 and 15 of a
pore size range of from 11 to 350 microns, as opposed to the 7
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007